Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26275154›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2016

Estimating the success of enzyme bioprospecting through metagenomics: current status and future trends.

Manuel Ferrer, Mónica Martínez-Martínez, Rafael Bargiela, Wolfgang R Streit, Olga V Golyshina, Peter N Golyshin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing 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

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Potential plastic biodegradation in lakes worldwide.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 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

6 authors.

Manuel FerrerInstitute of Catalysis, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Marie Curie 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Mónica Martínez-MartínezInstitute of Catalysis, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Marie Curie 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Rafael BargielaInstitute of Catalysis, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Marie Curie 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Wolfgang R StreitBiozentrum Klein Flottbek, Universität Hamburg, Ohnhorststraße 18, D-22609, Hamburg, Germany.
Olga V GolyshinaSchool of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, UK.
Peter N GolyshinSchool of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent reports have suggested that the establishment of industrially relevant enzyme collections from environmental genomes has become a routine procedure. Across the studies assessed, a mean number of approximately 44 active clones were obtained in an average size of approximately 53,000 clones tested using naïve screening protocols. This number could be significantly increased in shorter times when novel metagenome enzyme sequences obtained by direct sequencing are selected and subjected to high-throughput expression for subsequent production and characterization. The pre-screening of clone libraries by naïve screens followed by the pyrosequencing of the inserts allowed for a 106-fold increase in the success rate of identifying genes encoding enzymes of interest. However, a much longer time, usually on the order of years, is needed from the time of enzyme identification to the establishment of an industrial process. If the hit frequency for the identification of enzymes performing at high turnover rates under real application conditions could be increased while still covering a high natural diversity, the very expensive and time-consuming enzyme optimization phase would likely be significantly shortened. At this point, it is important to review the current knowledge about the success of fine-tuned naïve- and sequence-based screening protocols for enzyme selection and to describe the environments worldwide that have already been subjected to enzyme screen programmes through metagenomic tools. Here, we provide such estimations and suggest the current challenges and future actions needed before environmental enzymes can be successfully introduced into the market.

Indexed as

BacteriaBioprospectingEnzymesMetagenomicsEnzymes

Identifiers

PMID26275154
PMCPMC4720405

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.