Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26053961›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparative Secretome Analysis of Trichoderma reesei and Aspergillus niger during Growth on Sugarcane Biomass.

Gustavo Pagotto Borin, Camila Cristina Sanchez, Amanda Pereira de Souza, Eliane Silva de Santana, Aline Tieppo de Souza, Adriana Franco Paes Leme, Fabio Marcio Squina, Marcos Buckeridge, Gustavo Henrique Goldman, Juliana Velasco de Castro Oliveira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Novel Endophytic Fungi fromMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Secretome Analysis ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Feasibility insights into the application ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Gustavo Pagotto BorinLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Camila Cristina SanchezLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Amanda Pereira de SouzaLaboratório de Fisiologia Ecológica de Plantas (LAFIECO), Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eliane Silva de SantanaLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Aline Tieppo de SouzaLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Adriana Franco Paes LemeLaboratório Nacional de Biociências (LNBio), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fabio Marcio SquinaLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marcos BuckeridgeLaboratório de Fisiologia Ecológica de Plantas (LAFIECO), Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gustavo Henrique GoldmanLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil; Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana Velasco de Castro OliveiraLaboratório Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Bioetanol (CTBE), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa em Energia e Materiais (CNPEM), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur dependence on fossil fuel sources and concern about the environment has generated a worldwide interest in establishing new sources of fuel and energy. Thus, the use of ethanol as a fuel is advantageous because it is an inexhaustible energy source and has minimal environmental impact. Currently, Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol, which is produced from sugarcane juice fermentation. However, several studies suggest that Brazil could double its production per hectare by using sugarcane bagasse and straw, known as second-generation (2G) bioethanol. Nevertheless, the use of this biomass presents a challenge because the plant cell wall structure, which is composed of complex sugars (cellulose and hemicelluloses), must be broken down into fermentable sugar, such as glucose and xylose. To achieve this goal, several types of hydrolytic enzymes are necessary, and these enzymes represent the majority of the cost associated with 2G bioethanol processing. Reducing the cost of the saccharification process can be achieved via a comprehensive understanding of the hydrolytic mechanisms and enzyme secretion of polysaccharide-hydrolyzing microorganisms. In many natural habitats, several microorganisms degrade lignocellulosic biomass through a set of enzymes that act synergistically. In this study, two fungal species, Aspergillus niger and Trichoderma reesei, were grown on sugarcane biomass with two levels of cell wall complexity, culm in natura and pretreated bagasse. The production of enzymes related to biomass degradation was monitored using secretome analyses after 6, 12 and 24 hours. Concurrently, we analyzed the sugars in the supernatant.

resultsAnalyzing the concentration of monosaccharides in the supernatant, we observed that both species are able to disassemble the polysaccharides of sugarcane cell walls since 6 hours post-inoculation. The sugars from the polysaccharides such as arabinoxylan and β-glucan (that compose the most external part of the cell wall in sugarcane) are likely the first to be released and assimilated by both species of fungi. At all time points tested, A. niger produced more enzymes (quantitatively and qualitatively) than T. reesei. However, the most important enzymes related to biomass degradation, including cellobiohydrolases, endoglucanases, β-glucosidases, β-xylosidases, endoxylanases, xyloglucanases, and α-arabinofuranosidases, were identified in both secretomes. We also noticed that the both fungi produce more enzymes when grown in culm as a single carbon source.

conclusionOur work provides a detailed qualitative and semi-quantitative secretome analysis of A. niger and T. reesei grown on sugarcane biomass. Our data indicate that a combination of enzymes from both fungi is an interesting option to increase saccharification efficiency. In other words, these two fungal species might be combined for their usage in industrial processes.

Indexed as

BiomassMetabolomeAspergillus nigerFungal ProteinsMetabolomicsMonosaccharidesSaccharumTrichodermaFungal ProteinsMonosaccharides

Identifiers

PMID26053961
PMCPMC4460134

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.