Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26068180›Full record

ReviewBioengineered2015

Driving biomass breakdown through engineered cellulosomes.

Sean P Gilmore, John K Henske, Michelle A O'Malley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineered, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  9. Hydrogenosome, Pairing Anaerobic Fungi and HJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Designing chimeric enzymes inspired by fungal cellulosomes.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Sean P Gilmorea Department of Chemical Engineering ; University of California ; Santa Barbara , CA USA.
John K Henske
Michelle A O'Malley

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extraction of sugar is the rate-limiting step in converting unpretreated biomass into value-added products through microbial fermentation. Both anaerobic fungi and anaerobic bacteria have evolved to produce large multi-cellulase complexes referred to as cellulosomes, which are powerful machines for biomass deconstruction. Characterization of bacterial cellulosomes has inspired synthetic "designer" cellulosomes, consisting of parts discovered from the native system that have proven useful for cellulose depolymerization. By contrast, the multi-cellulase complexes produced by anaerobic fungi are much more poorly understood, and to date their composition, architecture, and enzyme tethering mechanism remain unknown and heavily debated. Here, we compare current knowledge pertaining to the cellulosomes produced by both bacteria and fungi, including their application to synthetic enzyme-tethered systems for tunneled biocatalysis. We highlight gaps in knowledge and opportunities for discovery, especially pertaining to the potential of fungal cellulosome-inspired systems.

Indexed as

BacteriaBacterial ProteinsBiocatalysisBioengineeringBiomassCellulasesCelluloseCellulosomesFermentationFungal ProteinsFungiGlucoseGlycoside HydrolasesHydrolysisMultienzyme ComplexesBacterial ProteinsCellulasesCelluloseFungal ProteinsGlucoseGlycoside HydrolasesMultienzyme Complexesanaerobic fungibiofuelsCBM, Carbohydrate Binding ModulecellulasecellulosomeELISA, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayGH, Glycoside HydrolaseGST, Glutathione S-TransferaselignocelluloseSLH, Surface Layer Homology

Identifiers

PMID26068180
PMCPMC4601266

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.