Analysis of a Modern Hybrid and an Ancient Sugarcane Implicates a Complex Interplay of Factors in Affecting Recalcitrance to Cellulosic Ethanol Production
Fig 5
Enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation.
A) Sugar release efficiency (%) in RB867517 and S. spontaneum in different stages of culm development B) conversion of cellulose to ethanol (%) in RB867517 and S. spontaneum in different stages of culm development C) g ethanol/ g glucose ratio in RB867517 and S. spontaneum in different stages of culm development. Values are mean and standard error (n = 3). Black bars–S. spontaneum (AG), grey bars–RB867515 (RB). Bars with common letters were not significantly different (Tukey test, p<0.05). Asterisks indicate a significant difference (t-test, p<0.05) between the same internodes of the two plants studied. Error bars indicate SE of three biological replicates (n = 3). IN2: internode 2, IN4: internode 4, IN5: internode 5, IN9: internode 9.