Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Cell Wall Proteomics as a Means to Identify Target Genes to Improve Second‐Generation Biofuel Production

Written By

Maria J. Calderan‐Rodrigues, Juliana G. Fonseca, Carlos A. Labate and Elisabeth Jamet

Submitted: May 30th, 2016 Reviewed: October 5th, 2016 Published: January 25th, 2017

DOI: 10.5772/66189

Chapter metrics overview

1,632 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Second‐generation biofuels (B2G) generally uses residues composed of lignocellulosic materials to produce renewable energy (potentially up to 50%), without increasing the planted areas. However, the high cost of enzymes required for cell wall disassembly prior to the saccharification makes the B2G production more expensive yet, compared to the first‐generation biofuels. Designing plants with less lignin, a barrier to B2G production, or facilitating cell wall disassembly by searching for the plant mechanisms can be the way to obtain B2G feasibility. Therewith, plant cell wall proteomics provides valuable information concerning the main cell wall proteins (CWPs) involved in its biosynthesis and rearrangements. Essentially, two plants of the grass family have been studied: sugarcane as a crop amenable to second‐generation ethanol (E2G) production; and Brachypodium distachyon as a model plant amenable to genetic transformation. Cell wall proteomics has allowed the identification of numerous CWPs as well as their fine profiling in different organs and at various developmental stages. Proteins acting on carbohydrates, mostly glycosyl hydrolases, and oxidoreductases, including class III peroxidases and laccases, can be highlighted. Both kinds of CWPs are assumed to contribute to the remodelling of cell wall polysaccharides by enzymatic or non‐enzymatic mechanisms. CWPs present in growing organs could also be attractive candidates since they greatly contribute to cell wall plasticity.


  • Brachypodium distachyon
  • cell wall protein
  • grass
  • second generation ethanol
  • sugarcane

1. Introduction

Second‐generation biofuels (B2G) are a promising renewable alternative to supply energy demand of fossil fuels worldwide, whose advantage is mostly due to the lower emission of greenhouse gases and the possibility to increase the production without widening the planted area. However, we are still far from producing B2G at an economically competitive way and reasonable amount to replace fossil fuels. B2G uses lignocellulosic material as substrates. Since sugarcane has been considered one of the best crops to produce bioethanol, its bagasse and straw have been studied as one of the main complementary sources of C6 and C5 sugars for B2G. One of the main constrains to its economic feasibility relies on the rate of success of the enzymatic saccharification enabling the conversion of the plant cell wall sugars into bioethanol [1]. Saccharification of the cell wall is the process of hydrolysis by which a complex carbohydrate, such as cellulose can be broken into monosaccharides. Thus, the production requires a pretreatment of the biomass prior to expose the wall carbohydrates to substantial amounts of expensive enzymes in the industrial process.

Several strategies have been recently used to improve saccharification, mostly using microorganism enzymes. Different enzymes with cell wall polysaccharide degradation activity have been prospected from several organisms such as seaweed [2], termite stomach [3] and fungi [4]. However, even presenting some advances [5, 6], the cost of E2G is not competitive for first‐generation ethanol production from sugarcane.

New approaches are emerging from the plant’s perspective itself, which together may be the “eureka” to solve this puzzle. Presently applied research has been focusing on lowering or modifying the lignin content to allow its removal in the industrial production and thus increasing the access of carbohydrates to saccharification [7]. Indeed, lignin is frequently the major reason for biomass recalcitrance. However, several strategies that focused on diminishing the lignin content, and thus leading to improved saccharification, resulted in deleterious effect on plant development [8]. A different point‐of‐view based on lignin modification may be more effective, since even increased lignin content showed improved saccharification in Brachypodium distachyon[9]. Thereby, the expression of a bacterial enzyme into Arabidopsis thalianaaltered lignin and improved saccharification, without lowering the lignin content [10].

Another strategy is to engineer the plant cell wall genes in order to enable the plant itself to produce easier breakable sugars. By producing cellulose with more adequate characteristics to allow a more efficient saccharification, such as cristallinity, the plant material showed to have improved saccharification efficiency in A. thaliana[11]. Genetic engineered rice and wheat also showed increased enzymatic saccharification when cell wall proteins (CWPs) acting on polysaccharides had their expression changed [1, 12].

The plant cell wall represents 50% of the organic carbon present on earth [13]. Cellulose is a major cell wall polysaccharide and the major second‐generation ethanol (E2G) source. The biosynthesis of wall polymers and all the processes that occur in the plant cell wall are mediated by CWPs among which numerous enzymes. Prospective and directed studies to increase the knowledge on CWPs both in model species and in plants of agricultural interest provide valuable information on target‐proteins in order to direct the plant pathways and produce plant carbohydrates easily saccharified. Accordingly, the high potential of this research can be the key to B2G industrial production.


2. Plant cell wall proteomics

2.1. The plant cell wall

The plant cell wall was once considered as a static structure, but since the 1990s, it has been addressed as a dynamic part of the cell, more similar to an extracellular compartment [14]. It has to be strong and flexible at the same time to enable its several roles such as mechanical stability, osmotic control, signalling and defence against different types of stresses. Its composition varies according to the stage of development, cell types and environmental cues. As an example, epidermis cells have to be better prepared for water loss than inner cells [15].

Cell walls can be classified into two types: primary and secondary. The former is found in growing tissues, and thus extendable; and the latter type is formed after the end of cell growth. It can allow cells to resist to compression forces [16]. Cell wall composition includes cellulose, hemicelluloses, pectins, proteins [17] and lignin in some cell types [18].

Cellulose is a cell wall polysaccharide with a high molecular mass, formed by long linear chains of β‐1,4‐linked glucose residues forming microfibrils [19]. Primary walls contain around 20-30% cellulose, and secondary walls up to 50% [20]. Hemicelluloses are composed of β‐1,4‐linked monosaccharides with side chains [19]. The most present hemicelluloses in dicots and grasses are xyloglucan (XG) and β‐(1,3‐1,4)‐mixed linked glucans, respectively. XG is probably involved in forming cross‐links between cellulose microfibrils [21]. Pectic polysaccharides are formed by structures enriched by galacturonic acid with complex side chain structures [22]. Sugarcane and other grass family species cell walls present specific characteristics such as being poor in pectins and having no XG interlocking the cellulose microfibrils in dividing cells; this role is performed by glucuronoarabinoxylans (GAXs) [14]. Lignin is a phenolic polymer and confers rigidity to cellulose microfibrils, and thus, to the cell wall [23].

Cell wall biosynthesis seems to be specific for each cell type [21]. During this process, cellulose is synthesized at the level of the plasma membrane by specific protein complexes. Conversely, non‐cellulosic polysaccharides, such as hemicelluloses and pectins, are synthesized in the secretion pathway and secreted to the apoplast, where they form the wall networks together with cellulose [24]. Cell expansion occurs with enzymatic or non‐enzymatic cleavages of cell wall polymers and the osmotic pressure separating the microfibrils. Polymers are then deposited in the internal part of the cell wall, forming the new cross‐linked network [14]. Several phytohormones are involved in cell expansion, acting specifically at the reorientation of the microtubules, which may reorient the cellulose deposition [21].

As widely known, sugarcane is the raw material for one of the largest bioethanol production. E2G production uses lignocellulosic material to convert into ethanol through the steps of pretreatment (to expose the cell wall polysaccharides to the enzymes), hydrolysis of the cellulosic and hemicellulosic polysaccharides into monomers and finally fermentation of these sugars into ethanol [25].

Over the years, the information regarding cell wall components from the chemical point‐of‐view has increased, enabling us to think about strategies to modulate the cell wall structure. There is knowledge available related to cellulose and hemicelluloses biochemical properties and to the pectic polysaccharides biochemistry [26]. However, less is known about the overall architecture of the cell wall. This knowledge should be enlarged to provide clues to engineer walls. Indeed, since the cell wall is constantly being modified either to respond to internal and external stimuli, this self‐regulatory mechanism could be modulated to respond to commercial interests.

2.2. The plant cell wall proteome

The concept of CWPs includes not only the proteins present inside the cell wall structure but also those present in the apoplast. CWPs are essential to the wall functions such as modification of the cell wall components, its structure, signalling, interaction with the plasma membrane and response to stresses [27]. Several factors can modify the cell wall proteome content, such as development [2831] and biotic or abiotic stresses [32, 33].

CWPs share three common characteristics: a signal peptide to be targeted to the secretory pathway, no intracellular retention motif and the absence of hydrophobic trans‐membrane domains. The signal peptide presents a positive charge at its N‐terminus, a hydrophobic central region and a polar C‐terminus [34]. One of the best‐described intracellular retention motif is the C‐terminal H/KDEL, which maintains proteins inside the endoplasmic reticulum [35]. On the contrary, other sorting determinants are more complex. For example, vacuolar targeting routes are diverse and there seems to be different types of vacuole sorting determinants [36]. Bioinformatic programs can help predicting the subcellular location of proteins through protein amino acid sequences, but they rely on experimental evidence which can be incomplete [37].

Three types of CWPs can be considered according to their interaction with the cell wall matrix [27]. The labile proteins have little or no interaction with the cell wall polysaccharides and circulate in the extracellular matrix. They can be recovered by vacuum infiltration of tissues [38]. The weakly bound proteins can be linked to the wall components through Van der Waals interaction, hydrogen bonds, or ionic links and can be recovered with salt solutions. Strongly bound proteins such as structural proteins (SPs) are resistant to salt extractions and can be linked together or to polysaccharides by covalent bonds [39]. Regarding functions, CWPs can be divided into nine functional classes including a class of miscellaneous proteins (MPs) and a class of proteins yet unknown function (PUFs) [40]. As all classifications, this one has some drawbacks like the difficulty to classify proteins with dual functions such as protease possibly involved in protein turnover or in signalling, but it allows getting an overview of cell wall proteomes [41].

Proteins acting on carbohydrates (PACs) mostly comprise glycosyl hydrolases (GHs) and are involved in cell wall polysaccharides remodelling [42]. PACs belong to the most represented classes in cell wall proteomes. Cellulases and glucanases are examples of proteins that can be found in this family. These enzymes are used in enzymatic hydrolysis cocktails used in E2G production, so they could be targets for manipulation in the plant species. Oxidoreductases (ORs) are mostly class III peroxidases (Prxs). Prx activities are diverse, they can break cell wall polysaccharides in a non‐enzymatic way and facilitate cell wall extension but they can also favour the cross‐linking of cell wall components such as monolignols and SPs [43]. Proteins related to lipid metabolism (PLMs) are almost all lipid transfer proteins and lipases. Some of them could be involved in cell wall loosening through the bind of lipids to their hydrophobic cavity [44]. Proteases (Ps) can play roles in protein turnover, protein maturation, signalling or defence [45]. SPs, such as hydroxyproline‐rich glycoproteins, proline‐rich proteins and glycine‐rich proteins can be cross‐linked in cell walls and contribute to its architecture [46, 47]. Proteins with interaction domains with proteins or polysaccharides (PIDs) comprise lectins and enzyme inhibitors. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the role of lectins in plant cell walls [48]. Enzyme inhibitors play a critical role in the regulation of enzymatic activities. As an example, there is a subtle interplay between pectin methylesterase and pectin methylesterase inhibitors [49]. Proteins possibly involved in signalling (PSs) include arabinogalactan proteins which have been assumed to play diverse roles during plant development, and particularly in calcium signalling [50]. The miscellaneous proteins (MPs) contain many protein families which are not numerous enough to form a distinct class. The roles of proteins with domains of unknown function (PUFs) are mostly unknown, but this functional class offers potential for future research. Among PUFs, the DUF642 proteins have been shown to interact with cellulose in vitro[51]. They could also be involved in pectin methylesterification or in defence [52, 53].

Isolating and identifying CWPs is particularly challenging. Indeed, the difficulty begins with the extraction procedure. The cell wall is an open compartment and the polysaccharidic network can be a trap for intracellular contaminants. Either destructive (DP) or non‐destructive (NDP) protocols have been used. DPs rely on grinding the tissues to isolate cell walls prior to the extraction of proteins with salt solutions [54]. The purification of cell walls relies on the fact that it is the denser cell compartment [55]. NDPs, using vacuum infiltration of tissues with mannitol or salt solutions, do not harm the cells and allow extraction of apoplastic proteins [56]. Usually, the salts used in the extraction protocols are CaCl2 and LiCl. CaCl2 extract CWPs through a competition mechanism [40] since pectins strongly chelate calcium ions [57]. An illustration of the effects of CaCl2 has been provided by plasmolysis experiments performed on leaf tissues transiently expressing a CWP fused to the fluorescent TagRFP (red fluorescent protein) [38]. The fusion protein in displaced from the cell wall to the apoplastic space upon CaCl2 application. On the other hand, LiCl is able to extract hydroxyproline‐rich glycoproteins [58]. The use of both types of protocols to extract CWPs can be a good strategy to increase the coverage of the cell wall proteome [30]. However, some CWPs still escape because they are strongly bound to cell wall components [38]. At present, the cell wall proteomes are poor in SPs such as hydroxyproline‐rich glycoproteins or proline‐rich proteins. In addition, since some CWPs are heavily glycosylated, these post‐translational modifications can be a problem for protein identification by mass spectrometry. Finally, proteomics studies of species that do not have a fully sequenced genome present an additional bottleneck because the precise identification of proteins cannot be achieved.

Even carefully performing all these protocols, the identification of proteins that are not secreted through the classical secretory pathway has been reported. These proteins can be predicted to belong to different cell compartments such as cytoplasm, nucleus, mitochondria, chloroplasts or vacuoles. The question of the existence of alternative routes of secretion is still a matter of debate [41].


3. A focus on B. distachyonand sugarcane cell wall proteomes

After designing several protocols to analyse the cell wall proteome of A. thalianaas a test case, around 700 CWPs have been identified in different organs such as leaves, stems, roots and etiolated hypocotyls as well as in cell suspension cultures, i.e. about one‐third of the expected total number [59]. In order to widen the knowledge regarding CWPs targeted to find candidate routes to improve E2G production from the plant perspective, two additional species were studied: (i) B. distachyonas a model for grass species from temperate areas, amenable to genetic transformation and having a fully sequenced genome [60]; and (ii) sugarcane, only having a large EST collection, but being one of the major sources for E2G production.

3.1. Plant material

Figure 1.

B. distachyonand sugarcane plants used for proteomics studies: 2‐month‐old sugarcane plants (A), 4‐month‐old sugarcane plants (B, C), and 2‐month‐oldB. distachyonplants (D, E). f (young leaves), g (mature leaves), h (apical internodes), and i (basal internodes).

For B. distachyon, three types of organs were used: leaves, internodes and grains (Figures 1A, B). Two‐month‐old plants were used and the CWP extractions were performed in young or mature leaves and apical or basal internodes [29]. These organs were studied in order to compare the differences between organs and to look for proteins possibly involved in cell wall extension and growth arrest. Grains were collected at different times after flowering (9, 13 or 19 days) [31, 61]. The aim of the study was to understand the modifications of cell wall polysaccharides during grain development and filling because they are key determinant of the size and mass of the grain.

In the case of sugarcane, three types of materials have been studied (Figures 1CE): 11‐day‐old cell suspension cultures [62], 2‐month‐old stems [30], and 4‐month‐old young or mature leaves and apical or basal internodes [63]. The aim was to identify among CWPs possible targets for cell wall modification in order to facilitate E2G production.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Extraction procedures

In these experiments, different extraction techniques were used. For B. distachyon, a DP was used for all the materials [54]. It started with mixing the tissue in a 5 mM sodium acetate buffer, pH 4.6, 0.4 M sucrose and protease inhibitor cocktail. After that, the mixture had to be ground in a blender at full speed for about 15 min. PVPP was added to the homogenate, and it was stirred for 30 min at 4°C. To isolate cell walls, the mixture was submitted to several successive centrifugations (1000×g) in a solution of increasing sucrose concentration (0.6-1.0 M). The pellet was then extensively washed through a Nylon net (25 µm) to remove sucrose. The cell wall fraction was ground in liquid nitrogen. Then, proteins were extracted by different salt buffers prepared in 5 mM sodium acetate, pH 4.6: twice in 0.2 M CaCl2, followed by twice in 2 M LiCl. Cell walls were resuspended in these buffers and centrifuged at high speed (40,000×g/15 min/4°C). The four supernatants were pooled.

The same DP with minor modifications was used for sugarcane cell suspension cultures and 2‐month‐old stems [30, 62]. Another extraction method was tested with young or mature leaves and basal or apical internodes. This method was based on vacuum infiltration [56], which is a NDP requiring working with fresh material only. The plant organs were cut to fit in a beaker and completely immersed in a solution of 3.0 M mannitol and 0.2 M CaCl2 in a dessicator connected to a vacuum pump. The tissues were vacuum‐infiltrated for 5 min. Plant organs were centrifuged in a swinging bucket rotor (200×g/15 min/20°C). The apoplastic fluids (released at the bottom of the tube) were collected and stored at low temperature. This procedure was repeated once with the same solution. Additional two rounds of vacuum infiltration were performed in a solution with 2 M LiCl instead of 0.2 M CaCl2. All four extracts were pooled.

Samples resulted from DP and NDP were desalted, freeze‐dried to concentrate proteins and then used in 1D‐electrophoresis (1D‐E) to check the quality of the protein extracts.

It should be mentioned that all the experiments have been repeated twice or thrice to take into account biological variation. Only CWPs identified in at least two biological replicates have been validated. A detailed description of these protocols can be found in Refs. [2931, 6163].

3.2.2. Identification of proteins by mass spectrometry and bioinformatic analyses

Then, proteins were identified by mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) and bioinformatics after tryptic digestion performed at 4°C, after separation by 1D‐E or in solution. A detailed description of the parameters used for MS analysis can be found in [2931, 6163]. For B. distachyon, the genomic sequence data were used [64, 65]. For sugarcane, the SUCEST translated EST database was used [66]. The amino acid sequences of the identified proteins were systematically compared to those of Sorghum bicolor, the closest related species having a fully sequenced genome [64]. In case of partial EST sequence, this comparison allowed the bioinformatics prediction of sub‐cellular localization and functional domains.

For both plant species, the bioinformatics analysis of the identified proteins was carried out de novoin the same way regarding the prediction of their subcellular localization and of functional domains using the ProtAnnDB annotation pipeline [67, 68]. All the experimental data were collected in the WallProtDB database [59, 69]. The Venn diagrams used in this chapter were made with the Venny online software [70].

3.2.3. A comparative survey of B. distachyon and sugarcane cell wall proteomes

Figure 2.

Percentage of CWPs and proteins predicted to be intracellular in each proteome.B. distachyonproteomes are in black and white, whereas sugarcane proteomes are in green and white. AI: apical internodes; BI: basal internodes; C: cell suspension cultures; G: grains; ML: mature leaves; YL: young leaves; 2MS: 2‐month‐old stems.

As a key indicator of the quality of the protein extract, the percentage of proteins predicted to be secreted and not retained in an intracellular compartment can be calculated (Figure 2). The other proteins can be considered as intracellular contaminants. The highest proportion of proteins predicted to be intracellular has been found in sugarcane cell suspension cultures (82%). This could be explained by two facts: a DP was used thus increasing the chance for intracellular proteins to be trapped in the cell wall polysaccharidic matrix; and/or cell suspension cultures contain a certain proportion of dead cells whose content is released in the culture medium, so that intracellular proteins can interact with the cell walls of living cells. Such result has also been obtained with cell suspension cultures of A. thaliana[71]. Apart from this sample, the proportion of proteins predicted to be intracellular is above 40%. The highest proportion of CWPs was obtained with basal internodes of B. distachyon. In that case, we noticed that the sedimentation of cell wall fragments were particularly easy for this sample, thus facilitating its purification [29].

Altogether, 567 and 273 different CWPs were identified in all mentioned experiments for B. distachyonand sugarcane, respectively. At present, these species, together with Oryza sativa(270 CWPs), have the largest cell wall proteomes among monocots [59].

The specific proteins found in each experiment, and the common ones are shown in Figure 3 for both species. A first comparison can be made between the cell wall proteomes of the aerial parts of B. distachyonand sugarcane, the most amenable to E2G production. Sixty‐three out of the 314 CWPs (20.1%) identified in B. distachyonleaves and internodes were common to both organs taken at two different stages of development (Figure 3A). The percentage of common proteins two by two was also homogenous, varying from 27% to 39%. This proportion was very different for sugarcane cell wall proteomes, with only 3.0% of the proteins common to all samples, i.e. 6 of 201 CWPs (Figure 3C). The comparison two by two reached a result similar to that obtained with B. distachyononly for CWPs present in apical and basal internodes (37.4%). The other duos have between 4.0% and 14.0% of common CWPs. This is probably related to the smaller size of the sugarcane cell wall proteomes of compared to those of B. distachyonand to the very different number of CWPs identified in leaves in comparison to stems for sugarcane. Using 2‐month‐old leaves, the difficulty in extracting proteins from cell walls was also observed (unpublished results). This might be inherent to the leather type of sugarcane leaves requiring a different extraction strategy. Another explanation could rely on the hexa‐ to octaploid genetic basis of sugarcane [72], which could lead to the expression of different sets of multigene family members at different developmental stages and in different organs.

Figure 3.

Venn diagrams showing common and specific CWPs for each experiment performed withB. distachyon(A and B) or sugarcane (C and D). AI: apical internodes; BI: basal internodes; C: cell suspension cultures; G: grains; ML: mature leaves; YL: young leaves; 2MS: 2‐month‐old stems.

Including the cell wall proteomes of B. distachyongrains, 25% of the CWPs were common to all organs (Figure 3B). It should be noted that the largest cell wall proteome was that of grains comprising 481 CWPs and that 45% of its CWPs were specific to this organ.

Now, looking at all the known cell wall proteomes of sugarcane, cell suspension cultures, leaves, 2‐ and 4‐month‐old stems only showed two common CWPs (Figure 3D). Eighty two of 273 CWPs (30.4%) were specific to 4‐month‐old basal and apical internodes.

These comparisons are of special interest because they allow identifying both CWPs specific to organ or developmental stages and CWPs common to all organs which may belong to a set of housekeeping CWPs essential for cell wall maintenance. For example, the set of proteins common to the 8 cell wall proteomes of B. distachyoncomprises 42 CWPs among which 10 GHs, 4 Prxs, 8 proteases, 1 lipid transfer protein (LTP), 2 GDSL lipases and 1 DUF642 protein. In sugarcane, six CWPs were found to be common to 4‐month‐old leaves and internodes (Figure 3C): one GH, two Prxs, two proteinase inhibitors, and one subtilisin, whereas two CWPs were common to all six cell wall proteomes (Figure 3D): a protein of unknown function and a cys‐protease. These CWPs would deserve functional studies to better understand their functions. The case of sugarcane seems more complex than that of B. distachyonwith less putative housekeeping CWPs identified up to now.

Now, cell wall proteomes can be considered from the functional point of view. As explained above, it is possible to group proteins according to the prediction of functional domains [27, 56]. Table 1 shows the distribution of B. distachyonand sugarcane CWPs into functional classes in the different cell wall proteomes. Some specific features can be noticed in B. distachyon: (i) PACs are less represented in basal internodes; (ii) ORs are more represented in internodes; (iii) PLMs are less represented in mature leaves; (iv) Ps are more represented in leaves; and (v) PIDs are less represented in mature leaves. Finally, SPs have been only found in grains with two leucine‐rich extensins identified. In sugarcane, the situation is very different: (i) PACs are less represented in cell suspension cultures and in leaves; (ii) ORs are more represented in cell suspension cultures and in mature leaves; (iii) PLMs are less represented in cell suspension cultures and in internodes of 4‐month‐old plants; (iv) Ps are less represented in cell suspension cultures, but more in 4‐month‐old stems; (v) PIDs are poorly represented in 2‐month‐old stems, but more represented in cell suspension cultures and in mature leaves; and (vi) PSs are less represented in cell suspension cultures, 2‐month‐old stems, and in young leaves. In both plants, there are also variations in the contribution of MPs and PUFs to all cell wall proteomes.

This overview allows getting a profiling of the cell wall proteomes and to focus on specific functional classes of CWPs. Because of the variations observed in the contribution of each functional class to the whole proteomes, it also shows that each plant and each organ has to be studied in detail before choosing a strategy to modify its cell walls. For example, ORs includes mostly Prxs, but also blue copper‐binding proteins, and multicopper oxidases. Prxs are involved in diverse physiological processes, such as signalling [43], lignification [73], and cross‐linking of SPs [74]. Their roles in cell wall polysaccharide and protein network rearrangements could be the reason why they are more represented in B. distachyonstems. Curiously, the sugarcane cell wall proteomes exhibit the highest proportions of ORs compared to other plants. Such CWPs are interesting targets whose genes could be engineered for E2G production optimization.

Functional classPACsOrsPLMsPsPIDsPSsSPsMPsPUFs
B. distachyon
 All proteomes24.213.610.813.
 All proteomes20.520.913.

Table 1.

Distribution of the CWPs found in each cell wall proteome of B. distachyonand sugarcane into functional classes.

Results are expressed as percentages of the number of CWPs identified in each proteome.

Values in bold are average values calculated with all proteomes data and values much different from these average values.

MPs: miscellaneous proteins; PLMs: proteins related to lipid metabolism; ORs: oxidoreductases; PACs: proteins acting on carbohydrates; PIDs: proteins with interaction domains; Ps: proteases; PSs: proteins involved in signalling; PUFs: proteins of unknown function; SPs: structural proteins; AI: apical internodes; BI: basal internodes; C: cell suspension cultures; G: grains; ML: mature leaves of 4‐month‐old plants; YL: young leaves of 4‐month‐old plants; 2MS: 2‐month‐old stems.

PLMs are mostly represented by LTPs and GDSL lipases. LTPs exact biological roles are yet unknown, but they have been related to cell wall loosening and extension [44], pathogen response, and cutin assembly [75]. Since sugarcane at young developmental stages are similar to rolled leaves, this may explain the high proportion of LTPs, probably playing roles in cutin assembly of both sides leather‐like leaves. Nevertheless, the better understanding of the mechanisms under this protein class may lead to the design of new strategies to increase biomass production.

The low percentage of PACs in sugarcane cell suspension cultures and leaves is also puzzling. PACs mostly include GHs, such as β‐xylosidase, β‐galactosidase and have been associated with cell wall loosening and expansion [76]. GH3, GH35, GH27, and GH51 can be of special interest since they show homology to enzymes of interest used for E2G production [3].

The two studied plant species, B. distachyonand sugarcane, appear to be complementary to identify CWPs and look for their functions. Although both plants are monocots and have similar cell wall composition, they seem to have different strategies to modulate cell wall structure during development. Combining genetics and biochemical approaches should allow getting insight in those mechanisms.

3.3. Perspectives and targets for E2G production

Changes in lignin composition have led to a subtle improved saccharification with no relevant deleterious effect [77]. However, for the cell wall polysaccharides, the challenge is still bigger since there is less knowledge regarding their synthesis. The main players able to modify cell wall polysaccharides are (i) the transcription factors that control the initial steps of gene expression and (ii) the enzymes and proteins involved in the biosynthesis of cell wall components and in their modifications in muro[78]. By altering transcription factors in A. thaliana, it was possible both to increase cellulose and decrease lignin content [79] and improve secondary cell wall synthesis in fibre cells [80]. In addition, the golden pot may be near; transgenic A. thalianaexpressing microbial hydrolases showed no visible changes in phenotype and increased wall degradability [81]. An alternative to decrease the transgenic debate and perhaps optimize efficiency could be altering the expression of the own plant enzymes generating a genetically modified plant, but not a transgenic one. Besides hydrolases, another possibility is to consider the potential of the plant cell wall as a sensor to perceive changes and direct cell wall polysaccharides synthesis, such as in microorganisms [78]. Then, attention should be paid to the fasciclin arabinogalactan proteins, wall‐associated kinases and other membrane proteins. Expressing carbohydrate‐binding proteins such as expansins could facilitate cell loosening, and it may be a possibility to improve saccharification as well [82].

As can be seen, modulation of CWPs expression offers a wide range of possibilities to achieve a plant cell wall more cost‐effective in terms of E2G production. Since some CWPs have been reported to act on cell wall remodelling or expansion, and we observed a different proportion of them in the several organs and developmental stages, we suggest focusing studies on some CWP families such as Prxs, GHs and LTPs, mostly those found in young and growing organs. By targeting the level of expression of these proteins or their spatial distribution, it may be possible to design plants with cell walls easily saccharified to E2G production. In order to achieve this goal, it is recommended to use tissue‐specific and spatial regulation of gene expression using precise gene promotors, so that there will be no deleterious effect to the living plant. Notwithstanding, we highlight that more information on the modifications occurring on cell wall polysaccharides has to be collected in order to provide the basis for applied results.



This research was partially funded by USP‐COFECUB (Proc. 10.1.1947.11.9), BIOEN/PRONEX FAPESP (Proc. 2008/56100‐5), INCT do Bioetanol, CNPQ (Proc.: 142784/2007‐9), and FAPESP (Proc. 2007/59327‐8 and 2012/1212521‐2). The authors are thankful to Dr. R Pont‐Lezica who was at the origin of the projects. They also thank Dr MC Falco and CTC for providing the sugarcane plants and cells. They thank Dr GM Souza and Dr M Nishiyama for providing the SUCEST sequences. MJR, JGF, and CAL are thankful to the Max Feffer Laboratory of Plant Genetics team, especially TR Cataldi and S Guidetti for handling the mass spectrometer and FE Morais and LM Franceschini for the bioinformatics assistance. EJ wishes to thank the CNRS, the Paul Sabatier‐Toulouse III University and ANR (Grant Génoplante/PCS‐08‐KBBE‐003/CELLWALL) for supporting her research.


  1. 1. Lionetti V, Francocci F, Ferrari S, Volpi C, Bellimcampi D, Galletti R, D’Ovidio R, De Lorenzo G, Cervone F. Engineering the cell wall by reducing. PNAS. 2010;107(2):616–621. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907549107
  2. 2. Lee YC, Oh C, De Zoysa M, Kim H, Wickramaarachchi WDN, Whang I, Do‐Hyung K, Lee J. Molecular cloning, overexpression, and enzymatic characterization. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;23(7):901–910. doi:10.4014/jmb.1209.09009
  3. 3. Franco‐Cairo JPL, Leonardo FC, Alvarez TM, Ribeiro DA, Bϋchli F, Costa‐Leonardo AM, Carazzolle MF, Costa FF, Paes Leme A, Gonçalo AGP, Squina FM. Functional characterization and target discovery of glycoside hydrolases from the digestome of the lower termite Coptotermes Gestroi Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011;4:50. doi:10.1186/1754‐6834‐4‐50
  4. 4. Kubicek CP, Starr TL, Glass NL. Plant cell wall‐degrading enzymes and their secretion in plant‐pathogenic fungi. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2014;52:427–451. doi:10.1146/annurev‐phyto‐102313‐045831
  5. 5. Gao D, Uppugundla N, Chundawat SPS, Yu X, Hermanson S, Gowda K, Brumm P, Mead D, Balan V, Dale BE. Hemicellulases and auxiliary enzymes for improved conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to monosaccharides. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011;4:5. doi:10.1186/1754‐6834‐4‐5
  6. 6. Zhang M, Su R, Qi W, He Z. Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose by optimizing enzyme complexes. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2010;160(5):1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s12010‐009‐8602‐3
  7. 7. Boaretto LF, Mazzafera P. The proteomes of feedstocks used for the production of second‐generation ethanol: a lacuna in the biofuel era. Ann Appl Biol. 2013;163(1):12–22. doi:10.1111/aab.12031
  8. 8. Eudes A, Liang Y, Mitra P, Loque D. Lignin bioengineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;26:189–198. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2014.01.002
  9. 9. Timpano H, Sibout R, Devaux M‐F, Alvarado C, Looten R, Falourd X, Pontoire B, Martin M, Legée F, Cézard L, Lapierre C, Badel E, Citerne S, Vernhettes S, Höfte H, Guillon F, Gonneau M. Brachypodium cell wall mutant with enhanced saccharification potential despite increased lignin content. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8(1):53–67. doi:10.1007/s12155‐014‐9501‐1
  10. 10. Eudes A, George A, Mukerjee P, Kim JS, Pollet B, Benke PI, Yang F, Mitra P, Sun L, Cetinkol OP, Chabout S, Mouille G, Soubigou‐Taconnat L, Balzergue S, Singh S, Holmes BM, Mukhopadhyay A, Keasling JD, Simmons BA, Lapierre C, Ralph J, Loqué D. Biosynthesis and incorporation of side‐chain‐truncated lignin monomers to reduce lignin polymerization and enhance saccharification. Plant Biotechnol J. 2012;10(5):609–620. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐7652.2012.00692.x
  11. 11. Harris D, Stork J, DeBolt S. Genetic modification in cellulose‐synthase reduces crystallinity and improves biochemical conversion to fermentable sugar. Glob Change Biol. 2009;1:51–61. doi:10.1111/j.1757‐1707.2009.01000.x
  12. 12. Nigorikawa M, Watanabe A, Furukawa K, Sonoki T, Ito Y. Enhanced saccharification of rice straw by overexpression of rice exo‐glucanase. Rice. 2012;5:14. doi:10.1186/1939‐8433‐5‐14
  13. 13. Minic Z, Jouanin L. Plant glycoside hydrolases involved in cell wall polysaccharide degradation. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2006;44(7–9):435–449. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2006.08.001
  14. 14. Carpita NC, Gibeaut DM. Structural models of primary cell walls in flowering plants: consistency of molecular structure with the physical properties of the walls during growth. Plant J. 1993;3(1):1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐313X.1993.tb00007.x
  15. 15. Yu H, Liu R, Qiu L, Huang Y. Composition of the cell wall in the stem and leaf sheath of wheat straw. Appl Polymer. 2007;104(2):1236–1240. doi:10.1002/app.25755
  16. 16. Lee JDK, Marcus SE, Knox JP. Cell wall biology: perspectives from cell wall imaging. Mol Plant. 2011;4(2):212–219. doi:10.1093/mp/ssq075
  17. 17. Bashline L, Lei L, Li S, Gu Y. Cell wall, cytoskeleton, and cell expansion in higher plants. Mol Plant. 2014;7(4):586–600. doi:10.1093/mp/ssu018
  18. 18. Zhao Q. Lignification: flexibility, biosynthesis and regulation. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21(8):713–721. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2016.04.006
  19. 19. Endler A, Persson S. Cellulose synthases and synthesis in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant. 2011;4(2):199–211. doi:10.1093/mp/ssq079
  20. 20. Albersheim P, Darvill A, Roberts K, Sederoff R, Staehelin A. Plant Cell Walls: From Chemistry to Biology. 1st ed. New York: Garland Science; 2010. 430 p. doi:10.1093/aob/mcr128
  21. 21. Chandran AKN, Jeong HY, Jung K‐H, Chanhui L. Development of functional modules based on co‐expression patterns for cell‐wall biosynthesis related genes in rice. J Plant Biol. 2016;59(1):1–15. doi:10.1007/s12374‐016‐0461‐1
  22. 22. Mohnen D. Pectin structure and biosynthesis. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2008;11(3):266–277. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.006
  23. 23. Hu WJ, Harding SA, Lung J, Popko JL, Ralph J, Stokke DD, Tsai CJ, Chiang VL. Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose accumulation and growth in transgenic trees. Nat Biotechnol. 1999;17(8):808–812. doi:10.1038/11758
  24. 24. Driouich A, Faye L, Staehelin LA. The plant Golgi apparatus: a factory for complex polysaccharides and glycoproteins. Trends Biochem Sci. 1993;18(6):210–214.
  25. 25. Kumar D, Murthy GS. Impact of pretreatment and downstream processing technologies on economics and energy in cellulosic ethanol production. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011;4(27). doi:10.1186/1754‐6834‐4‐27
  26. 26. Lee TK, Tropini C, Hsin J, Desmarais SM, Ursell TS, Gong E, Gitai Z, Monds RD, Huang KC. A dynamically assembled cell wall synthesis machinery buffers cell growth. PNAS. 2014;111(12):4554–4559. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313826111
  27. 27. Jamet E, Canut H, Boudart G, Pont‐Lezica RF. Cell wall proteins: a new insight through proteomics. Trends Plant Sci. 2006;11(1):33–39. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2005.11.006
  28. 28. Kwon HK, Yokoyama R, Nishitani K. A proteomic approach to apoplastic proteins involved in cell wall regeneration in protoplasts of Arabidopsis suspension‐cultured cells. Plant Cell Physiol. 2005;46(6):843–857. doi:10.1093/pcp/pci089
  29. 29. Douché T, San Clemente H, Burlat V, Roujol D, Valot B, Zivy M, Pont‐Lezica R, Jamet E.Brachypodium distachyonas a model plant toward improved biofuel crops: Search for secreted proteins involved in biogenesis and disassembly of cell wall polymers. Proteomics. 2013;13:2438–2454. doi:10.1002/pmic.201200507
  30. 30. Calderan‐Rodrigues MJ, Jamet E, Douché T, Bonassi MBR, Cataldi TR, Fonseca JG, San Clemente H, Pont‐Lezica R, Labate CA. Cell wall proteome of sugarcane stems: comparison of a destructive and a non‐destructive extraction method showed differences in glycoside hydrolases and peroxidases. BMC Plant Biol. 2016;16:14. doi:10.1186/s12870‐015‐0677‐0
  31. 31. Francin‐Allami M, Lollier V, Pavlovic M, San Clemente H, Rogniaux H, Jamet E, Guillon F, Larré C. Understanding the remodelling of cell walls duringBrachypodium distachyongrain development through a sub‐cellular quantitative proteomic approach. Proteomes. 2016;4(3):21. doi:10.3390/proteomes4030021
  32. 32. Guerra‐Guimarães L, Vieira A, Chaves I, Pinheiro C, Queiroz V, Renaut J, Ricardo CP. Effect of greenhouse conditions on the leaf apoplastic proteome ofCoffea arabicaplants. J Proteomics. 2014;104:128–139. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2014.03.024
  33. 33. Bengtsson T, Weighill D, Proux‐Wéra E, Levander F, Resjö S, Burra DD, Moushib LI, Hedley PE, Liljeroth E, Jacobson D, Alexandersson E, Andreasson E. Proteomics and transcriptomics of the BABA‐induced resistance response in potato using a novel functional annotation approach. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:315. doi:10.1186/1471‐2164‐15‐315
  34. 34. von Heijne G. A new method for predicting signal sequence cleavage sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986;14(11):4683–4690.
  35. 35. Denecke J, De Rycke R, Botterman J. Plant and mammalian sorting signals for protein retention in the endoplasmic reticulum contain a conserved epitope. EMBO J. 1992;11(6):2345–2355.
  36. 36. Pereira C, Pereira S, Pissarra J. Delivering of proteins to the plant vacuole—an update. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(5):7611–7623. doi:10.3390/ijms15057611
  37. 37. Emanuelsson O, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. Locating proteins in the cell using TargetP, SignalP and related tools. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(4):953–971. doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.131
  38. 38. Albenne C, Canut H, Hoffmann L, Jamet E. Plant cell wall proteins: a large body of data, but what about runaways? Proteomes. 2014;2(2):224–242. doi:10.3390/proteomes2020224
  39. 39. Tan L, Eberhard S, Pattathil S, Warder C, Glushka J, Yuan C, Hao Z, Zhu X, Avci U, Miller JS, Baldwin D, Pham C, Orlando R, Darvill A, Hahn MG, Kieliszewski MJ, Mohnen D. An Arabidopsis cell wall proteoglycan consists of pectin and arabinoxylan covalently linked to an arabinogalactan protein. Plant Cell. 2013;25(1):270–287. doi:10.1105/tpc.112.107334
  40. 40. Jamet E, Canut H, Albenne C, Boudart G, Pont‐Lezica R. Cell wall. In: Agrawal GK, Rakwal R, editors. Plant Proteomics: Technologies, Strategies and Applications. 1st ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008. pp. 293–307. ISBN: 978‐0‐470‐06976‐9.
  41. 41. Albenne C, Canut H, Jamet E. Plant cell wall proteomics: the leadership of Arabidopsis thaliana. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4:111. doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00111
  42. 42. Franková L, Fry SC. Biochemistry and physiological roles of enzymes that ‘cut and paste’ plant cell‐wall polysaccharides. J Exp Bot. 2013;64(12):3519–3550. doi:10.1093/jxb/ert201
  43. 43. Francoz E, Ranocha P, Nguyen‐Kim H, Jamet E, Burlat V, Dunand C. Roles of cell wall peroxidases in plant development. Phytochemistry. 2015;112:15–21. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.07.020
  44. 44. Nieuwland J, Feron R, Huisman BA, Fasolino A, Hilbers CW, Derksen J, Mariani C. Lipid transfer proteins enhance cell wall extension in tobacco. Plant Cell. 2005;17(7):2009–2019. doi:10.1105/tpc.105.032094
  45. 45. van der Hoorn NA. Plant proteases: from phenotypes to molecular mechanisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:191–223. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092835
  46. 46. Ringli C, Keller B, Ryser U. Glycine‐rich proteins as structural components. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2001;58:1430–1441. doi:10.1007/PL00000786
  47. 47. Cassab GI. Plant cell wall proteins. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1998;49:281–309. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.49.1.281
  48. 48. Lannoo N, Van Damme EJM. Lectin domains at the frontiers of plant defense. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:397. doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00397
  49. 49. Jolie RP, Duvetter T, Van Loey AM, Hendrickx ME. Pectin methylesterase and its proteinaceous inhibitor: a review. Carbohydr Res. 2010;345:2583–2595. doi:10.1016/j.carres.2010.10.002
  50. 50. Lamport DTA, Varnai P, Charlotte ES. Back to the future with the AGP–Ca2+ flux capacitor. Ann Bot. 2014;114(6):1069–1085. doi:10.1093/aob/mcu161
  51. 51. Vazquez‐Lobo A, Roujol D, Zuñiga E, Albenne C, Piñero D, de Buen AG, Jamet E. The highly conserved spermatophyte cell wall DUF642 protein family: Phylogeny and first evidence of interaction with cell wall polysaccharides in vitro. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2012;63(2):510–520. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.001
  52. 52. Zúñiga‐Sánchez E, Soriano D, Martínez‐Barajas Eleazar, Orozco‐Segovia A, de Buen AG. BIIDXI, the At4g32460 DUF642 gene, is involved in pectin methyl esterase regulation during Arabidopsis thalianaseed germination and plant development. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:338. doi:10.1186/s12870‐014‐0338‐8
  53. 53. Xie X, Wang Y. VqDUF642, a gene isolated from the Chinese grape Vitis quinquangularis, is involved in berry development and pathogen resistance. Planta. Forthcoming. doi:10.1007/s00425‐016‐2569‐4
  54. 54. Feiz L, Irshad M, Pont‐Lezica RF, Canut H, Jamet E. Evaluation of cell wall preparations for proteomics: a new procedure for purifying cell walls from Arabidopsis hypocotyls. Plant Methods. 2006;2:10. doi:10.1186/1746‐4811‐2‐10
  55. 55. Price CA. Plant cell fractionation. Methods Enzymol. 1974;31:501–519.
  56. 56. Boudart G, Jamet E, Rossignol M, Lafitte C, Borderies G, Jauneau A, Esquerré‐Tugayé MT, Pont‐Lezica R. Cell wall proteins in apoplastic fluids of Arabidopsis thaliana rosettes: identification by mass spectrometry and bioinformatics. Proteomics. 2005;5(1):212–221. doi:10.1002/pmic.200400882
  57. 57. Angyal SJ, Craig DC. The composition and conformation of D‐Threo‐3,4‐Hexodiulose in solution, and the X‐ray crystal‐structure of its beta‐anomer. Carbohydr Res. 1989;194:21–29. doi:0008–6215
  58. 58. Voigt J. Extraction by lithium chloride of hydroxyproline‐rich glycoproteins from intact cells of Chlamydomonas reinhardii. Planta. 1985;164(3):379–389. doi:10.1007/BF00402950
  59. 59. Cell wall Proteins and Development Team. WallProtDB [Internet]. 2008. Available from:‐[Accessed: 2016‐08‐12]
  60. 60. Mur LA, Allainguillaume J, Catalán P, Hasterok R, Jenkins G, Lesniewska K, Thomas I, Vogel J. Exploiting the Brachypodium Tool Box in cereal and grass research. New Phytol. 2011;191(2):334–347. doi:10.1111/j.1469‐8137.2011.03748.x
  61. 61. Francin‐Allami M, Merah K, Albenne C, Rogniaux H, Pavlovic M, Lollier V, Sibout R, Guillon F, Jamet E, Larré C. Cell wall proteomic ofBrachypodium distachyongrains: a focus on cell wall remodeling proteins. Proteomics. 2015;15(13):2296–2306. doi:10.1002/pmic.201400485
  62. 62. Calderan‐Rodrigues MJ, Jamet E, Bonassi MB, Guidetti‐Gonzalez S, Begossi AC, Setem LV, Franceschini LM, Fonseca JG, Labate CA. Cell wall proteomics of sugarcane cell suspension cultures. Proteomics. 2014;14(6):738–749. doi:10.1002/pmic.201300132
  63. 63. Fonseca JG. Characterization of the extracellular proteome of young and mature internodes of sugarcane [dissertation]. Piracicaba: Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz; 2015. 103 p. Available from:‐23042015‐162148/pt‐br.phpdoi:10.11606/D.11.2015.tde‐23042015‐162148
  64. 64. Joint Genome Institute. Phytozome [Internet]. 1997. Available from:[Accessed: 2016‐08‐12]
  65. 65. The International Brachypodium Initiative. Genome sequencing and analysis of the model grassBrachypodium distachyon. Nature. 2010;463(11):763–768. doi:10.1038/nature08747
  66. 66. Vettore AL, da Silva FR, Kemper EL, Souza GM, da Silva AM, Ferro MI, Henrique‐Silva F, Giglioti EA, Lemos MV, Coutinho LL, Nobrega MP, Carrer H, França SC, Bacci Júnior M, Goldman MH, Gomes SL, Nunes LR, Camargo LE, Siqueira WJ, Van Sluys MA, Thiemann OH, Kuramae EE, Santelli RV, Marino CL, Targon ML, Ferro JA, Silveira HC, Marini DC, Lemos EG, Monteiro‐Vitorello CB, Tambor JH, Carraro DM, Roberto PG, Martins VG, Goldman GH, de Oliveira RC, Truffi D, Colombo CA, Rossi M, de Araujo PG, Sculaccio SA, Angella A, Lima MM, de Rosa Júnior VE, Siviero F, Coscrato VE, Machado MA, Grivet L, Di Mauro SM, Nobrega FG, Menck CF, Braga MD, Telles GP, Cara FA, Pedrosa G, Meidanis J, Arruda P. Analysis and functional annotation of an expressed sequence tag collection for tropical crop sugarcane. Genome Res. 2003;13(12):2725–2735. doi:10.1101/gr.1532103
  67. 67. Cell wall Proteins and Development Team. ProtAnnDB [Internet]. 2009. Available from:‐[Accessed: 2016‐08‐12]
  68. 68. Clemente HS, Pont‐Lezica R, Jamet E. Bioinformatics as a tool for assessing the quality of sub‐cellular proteomic strategies and inferring functions of proteins: plant cell wall proteomics as a test case. Bioinform Biol Insights. 2009;3:15–28.
  69. 69. San Clemente H, Jamet E. WallProtDB, a database resource for plant cell wall proteomics. Plant Methods. 2015;11(1):2. doi:10.1186/s13007‐015‐0045‐y
  70. 70. Oliveros JC. Venny [Internet]. 2007. Available from:[Accessed: 2016‐08‐12]
  71. 71. Bayer EM, Bottrill AR, Walshaw J, Vigouroux M, Naldrett MJ, Thomas CL, Maule AJ. Arabidopsis cell wall proteome defined using multidimensional protein identification technology. Proteomics. 2006;6(1):301–311. doi:10.1002/pmic.200500046
  72. 72. Ming R, Liu SC, Lin YR, da Silva J, Wilson W, Braga D, van Deynze A, Wenslaff TF, Wu KK, Moore PH, Burnquist W, Sorrells ME, Irvine JE, Paterson AH. Detailed alignment of saccharum and sorghum chromosomes: comparative organization of closely related diploid and polyploid genomes. Genetics. 1998;150(4):1663–1682. doi:PMC1460436
  73. 73. Boerjan W, Ralph J, Baucher M. Lignin biosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2003;54:519–546. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.134938
  74. 74. Fry SC. Cross‐linking of matrix polymers in the growing cell walls of angiosperms. Plant Biol. 1986;37:165–186. doi:10.1146/annurev.pp.37.060186.001121
  75. 75. Yeats TH, Rose JK. The formation and function of plant cuticles. Plant Physiol. 2013;163(1):5–20. doi:10.1104/pp.113.222737
  76. 76. Hrubá P, Honys D, Twell D, Capková V, Tupý J. Expression of beta‐galactosidase and beta‐xylosidase genes during microspore and pollen development. Planta. 2005;220(6):931–940. doi:10.1007/s00425‐004‐1409‐0
  77. 77. Li X, Weng JK, Chapple C. Improvement of biomass through lignin modification. Plant J. 2008;54(4):569–581. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐313X.2008.03457.x
  78. 78. Doblin MS, Johnson KL, Humphries J, Newbigin EJ, Bacic A. Are designer plant cell walls a realistic aspiration or will the plasticity of the plant's metabolism win out? Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;26:108–114. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2013.11.012
  79. 79. Ambavaram MM, Krishnan A, Trijatmiko KR, Pereira A. Coordinated activation of cellulose and repression of lignin biosynthesis pathways in rice. Plant Physiol. 2011;155(2):916–931. doi:10.1104/pp.110.168641
  80. 80. Yang F, Mitra P, Zhang L, Prak L, Verhertbruggen Y, Kim JS, Sun L, Zheng K, Tang K, Auer M, Scheller HV, Loqué D. Engineering secondary cell wall deposition in plants. Plant Biotechnol J. 2013;11(3):325–335. doi:10.1111/pbi.12016
  81. 81. Pogorelko G, Fursova O, Lin M, Pyle E, Jass J, Zabotina OA. Post‐synthetic modification of plant cell walls by expression of microbial hydrolases in the apoplast. Plant Mol Biol. 2011;77(4–5):433–445. doi:10.1007/s11103‐011‐9822‐9
  82. 82. Turumtay H. Cell wall engineering by heterologous expression of cell wall‐degrading enzymes for better conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8:1574–1588. doi:10.1007/s12155‐015‐9624‐z

Written By

Maria J. Calderan‐Rodrigues, Juliana G. Fonseca, Carlos A. Labate and Elisabeth Jamet

Submitted: May 30th, 2016 Reviewed: October 5th, 2016 Published: January 25th, 2017