Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24992679›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Rumen cellulosomics: divergent fiber-degrading strategies revealed by comparative genome-wide analysis of six ruminococcal strains.

Bareket Dassa, Ilya Borovok, Vered Ruimy-Israeli, Raphael Lamed, Harry J Flint, Sylvia H Duncan, Bernard Henrissat, Pedro Coutinho, Mark Morrison, Pascale Mosoni and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Understanding the Gut Microbiota in Pediatric Patients with Alopecia Areata and their Siblings: A Pilot Study.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Bareket DassaDepartment of Biological Chemistry, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Ilya BorovokDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.
Vered Ruimy-IsraeliDepartment of Biological Chemistry, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Raphael LamedDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel.
Harry J FlintMicrobial Ecology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Sylvia H DuncanMicrobial Ecology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Bernard HenrissatArchitecture et Fonction des Macromolecules Biologiques, Aix-Marseille University and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Marseille, France.
Pedro CoutinhoArchitecture et Fonction des Macromolecules Biologiques, Aix-Marseille University and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Marseille, France.
Mark MorrisonUniversity of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia; Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Pascale MosoniThe French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), UR454 Unité de Microbiologie, Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France.
Carl J YeomanDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America.
Bryan A WhiteThe Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America.
Edward A BayerDepartment of Biological Chemistry, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA complex community of microorganisms is responsible for efficient plant cell wall digestion by many herbivores, notably the ruminants. Understanding the different fibrolytic mechanisms utilized by these bacteria has been of great interest in agricultural and technological fields, reinforced more recently by current efforts to convert cellulosic biomass to biofuels. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsHere, we have used a bioinformatics-based approach to explore the cellulosome-related components of six genomes from two of the primary fiber-degrading bacteria in the rumen: Ruminococcus flavefaciens (strains FD-1, 007c and 17) and Ruminococcus albus (strains 7, 8 and SY3). The genomes of two of these strains are reported for the first time herein. The data reveal that the three R. flavefaciens strains encode for an elaborate reservoir of cohesin- and dockerin-containing proteins, whereas the three R. albus strains are cohesin-deficient and encode mainly dockerins and a unique family of cell-anchoring carbohydrate-binding modules (family 37). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our comparative genome-wide analysis pinpoints rare and novel strain-specific protein architectures and provides an exhaustive profile of their numerous lignocellulose-degrading enzymes. This work provides blueprints of the divergent cellulolytic systems in these two prominent fibrolytic rumen bacterial species, each of which reflects a distinct mechanistic model for efficient degradation of cellulosic biomass.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyBacterial ProteinsCelluloseGenome, BacterialRuminococcusBacterial ProteinsCellulose

Identifiers

PMID24992679
PMCPMC4081043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.