1999
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.1.14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enhancement of cellulose production by expression of sucrose synthase in Acetobacter xylinum

Abstract: Higher plants efficiently conserve energy ATP in cellulose biosynthesis by expression of sucrose synthase, in which the high free energy between glucose and fructose in sucrose can be conserved and used for the synthesis of UDP-glucose. A mixture of sucrose synthase and bacterial cellulose synthase proceeded to form UDP-glucose from sucrose plus UDP and to synthesize 1,4-␤-glucan from the sugar nucleotide. The mutant sucrose synthase, which mimics phosphorylated sucrose synthase, enhanced the reaction efficien… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
63
2
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
63
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, in other plant species, the level of SuSy expression has been shown to be associated strongly with cellulose synthesis. Expression of the modified mung bean SuSy (S11E) in Acetobacter xylinum caused enhanced cellulose production by preventing the accumulation of UDP, which is known to inhibit cellulose formation in A. xylinum (35,11). In addition, carrot plants with suppressed SuSy showed decreased cellulose content (22), whereas suppression of SuSy in cotton resulted in an almost fiberless phenotype (36).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, in other plant species, the level of SuSy expression has been shown to be associated strongly with cellulose synthesis. Expression of the modified mung bean SuSy (S11E) in Acetobacter xylinum caused enhanced cellulose production by preventing the accumulation of UDP, which is known to inhibit cellulose formation in A. xylinum (35,11). In addition, carrot plants with suppressed SuSy showed decreased cellulose content (22), whereas suppression of SuSy in cotton resulted in an almost fiberless phenotype (36).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These observations may be particularly relevant toward explaining previous variability and negligible effects of phosphorylation on activity because all prior studies were performed at near neutral pH Winter et al, 1997;Nakai et al, 1998Nakai et al, , 1999Anguenot et al, 1999;Zhang et al, 1999;Chikano et al, 2001;Tanase et al, 2002). In studies in which an effect of phosphorylation on enzymatic activity was noted, it was the Suc cleavage activity of SUS that was specifically affected Nakai et al, 1998Nakai et al, , 1999Anguenot et al, 1999;Tanase et al, 2002). Our data suggest that the stimulation of cleavage activity by phosphorylation of S15 may be related to unstructuring of the amino terminus that also occurs in response to low pH (Figs.…”
Section: S15 Phosphorylation and Sus Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have noted that the Suc cleavage, but not synthetic, activity of SUS is specifically affected by phosphorylation, often as a result of an increased affinity for Suc and/or UDP Nakai et al, 1998Nakai et al, , 1999Anguenot et al, 1999;Tanase et al, 2002). However, effects of phosphorylation on enzymatic activity have not been universally observed or the detected changes were minor and therefore interpreted as inconsequential (Winter et al, 1997;Zhang et al, 1999;Chikano et al, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst the abundance of SS in the Golgi apparatus and plasma membranes has recently evoked the idea that it is involved in directing the carbon flow to cell wall synthesis (Amor et al 1995, Nakai et al 1999) the major role commonly attributed to this enzyme in sink organs is to convert the Suc imported from leaves into UDPglucose (UDPG), which is then transformed stepwise to glucose-1-phosphate (G1P), glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) and ADPglucose (ADPG) necessary for starch biosynthesis (Fig. 1a, b) (Müller-Röber et al 1992, Okita 1992, ap Rees 1995, Villand and Kleczkowski 1994, Denyer et al 1996, Buchanan et al 2000, Kossmann and Lloyd 2000, Neuhaus and Emes 2000, Tauberger et al 2000, Tiessen et al 2002.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%