Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26236396›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2015

Closely related fungi employ diverse enzymatic strategies to degrade plant biomass.

Isabelle Benoit, Helena Culleton, Miaomiao Zhou, Marcos DiFalco, Guillermo Aguilar-Osorio, Evy Battaglia, Ourdia Bouzid, Carlo P J M Brouwer, Hala B O El-Bushari, Pedro M Coutinho and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The FUNG-GROWTH database: linking fungal phenotype to genome.Microbiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving recombinant protein secretion inMetabolic engineering communications · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative genomics ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Mycology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genome mining of3 Biotech · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

27 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Isabelle Benoit *Fungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helena Culleton *Fungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miaomiao Zhou *Fungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcos DiFalcoCentre for Structural and Functional Genomics, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 Canada.
Guillermo Aguilar-OsorioMicrobiology and Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Evy BattagliaFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ourdia BouzidFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carlo P J M BrouwerFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hala B O El-BushariMicrobiology and Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pedro M CoutinhoArchitecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques, Aix-Marseille Université, 13288 Marseille, France.
Birgit S GrubenMicrobiology and Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kristiina S HildénDivision of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, Viikki Biocenter 1, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jos HoubrakenFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Luis Alexis Jiménez BarbozaDivision of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, Viikki Biocenter 1, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anthony LevasseurINRA, UMR1163 de Biotechnologie des Champignons Filamenteux, ESIL, Marseille, France.
Eline MajoorFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miia R MäkeläDivision of Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, Viikki Biocenter 1, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Hari-Mander NarangFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Blanca Trejo-AguilarMicrobiology and Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joost van den BrinkFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Patricia A vanKuykFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ad WiebengaFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Vincent McKieMegazyme International Ireland, IDA Business Park, Bray, Wicklow Ireland.
Barry McClearyMegazyme International Ireland, IDA Business Park, Bray, Wicklow Ireland.
Adrian TsangCentre for Structural and Functional Genomics, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 Canada.
Bernard HenrissatArchitecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques, Aix-Marseille Université, 13288 Marseille, France.
Ronald P de VriesFungal Physiology, CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre and Fungal Molecular Physiology, Utrecht University, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLCancer Genomics Centre · NLWesterdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute · NLConcordia University · CAUniversity of Helsinki · FIAix-Marseille Université · FRBiocenter Finland · FIKing Abdulaziz University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlant biomass is the major substrate for the production of biofuels and biochemicals, as well as food, textiles and other products. It is also the major carbon source for many fungi and enzymes of these fungi are essential for the depolymerization of plant polysaccharides in industrial processes. This is a highly complex process that involves a large number of extracellular enzymes as well as non-hydrolytic proteins, whose production in fungi is controlled by a set of transcriptional regulators. Aspergillus species form one of the best studied fungal genera in this field, and several species are used for the production of commercial enzyme cocktails.

resultsIt is often assumed that related fungi use similar enzymatic approaches to degrade plant polysaccharides. In this study we have compared the genomic content and the enzymes produced by eight Aspergilli for the degradation of plant biomass. All tested Aspergilli have a similar genomic potential to degrade plant biomass, with the exception of A. clavatus that has a strongly reduced pectinolytic ability. Despite this similar genomic potential their approaches to degrade plant biomass differ markedly in the overall activities as well as the specific enzymes they employ. While many of the genes have orthologs in (nearly) all tested species, only very few of the corresponding enzymes are produced by all species during growth on wheat bran or sugar beet pulp. In addition, significant differences were observed between the enzyme sets produced on these feedstocks, largely correlating with their polysaccharide composition.

conclusionsThese data demonstrate that Aspergillus species and possibly also other related fungi employ significantly different approaches to degrade plant biomass. This makes sense from an ecological perspective where mixed populations of fungi together degrade plant biomass. The results of this study indicate that combining the approaches from different species could result in improved enzyme mixtures for industrial applications, in particular saccharification of plant biomass for biofuel production. Such an approach may result in a much better improvement of saccharification efficiency than adding specific enzymes to the mixture of a single fungus, which is currently the most common approach used in biotechnology.

Indexed as

AspergillusBiofuelDiversityEnzyme productionPlant biomass degradationPolysaccharidesSaccharification

Identifiers

PMID26236396
PMCPMC4522099
OpenAlexW2147405783

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.