↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of four glycosyl residue composition methods for effectiveness in detecting sugars from cell walls of dicot and grass tissues

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of four glycosyl residue composition methods for effectiveness in detecting sugars from cell walls of dicot and grass tissues
Published in
Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13068-017-0866-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ajaya K. Biswal, Li Tan, Melani A. Atmodjo, Jaclyn DeMartini, Ivana Gelineo-Albersheim, Kimberly Hunt, Ian M. Black, Sushree S. Mohanty, David Ryno, Charles E. Wyman, Debra Mohnen

Abstract

The effective use of plant biomass for biofuel and bioproduct production requires a comprehensive glycosyl residue composition analysis to understand the different cell wall polysaccharides present in the different biomass sources. Here we compared four methods side-by-side for their ability to measure the neutral and acidic sugar composition of cell walls from herbaceous, grass, and woody model plants and bioenergy feedstocks. Arabidopsis, Populus, rice, and switchgrass leaf cell walls, as well as cell walls from Populus wood, rice stems, and switchgrass tillers, were analyzed by (1) gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) of alditol acetates combined with a total uronic acid assay; (2) carbodiimide reduction of uronic acids followed by GC-MS of alditol acetates; (3) GC-MS of trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives; and (4) high-pressure, anion-exchange chromatography (HPAEC). All four methods gave comparable abundance ranking of the seven neutral sugars, and three of the methods were able to quantify unique acidic sugars. The TMS, HPAEC, and carbodiimide methods provided comparable quantitative results for the specific neutral and acidic sugar content of the biomass, with the TMS method providing slightly greater yield of specific acidic sugars and high total sugar yields. The alditol acetate method, while providing comparable information on the major neutral sugars, did not provide the requisite quantitative information on the specific acidic sugars in plant biomass. Thus, the alditol acetate method is the least informative of the four methods. This work provides a side-by-side comparison of the efficacy of four different established glycosyl residue composition analysis methods in the analysis of the glycosyl residue composition of cell walls from both dicot (Arabidopsis and Populus) and grass (rice and switchgrass) species. Both primary wall-enriched leaf tissues and secondary wall-enriched wood/stem tissues were analyzed for mol% and mass yield of the non-cellulosic sugars. The TMS, HPAEC, and carbodiimide methods were shown to provide comparable quantitative data on the nine neutral and acidic sugars present in all plant cell walls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Other 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 19%
Chemical Engineering 3 11%
Chemistry 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
#1,416
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,312
of 324,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
#48
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.