Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26583044›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2015

Controlling microbial contamination during hydrolysis of AFEX-pretreated corn stover and switchgrass: effects on hydrolysate composition, microbial response and fermentation.

Jose Serate, Dan Xie, Edward Pohlmann, Charles Donald, Mahboubeh Shabani, Li Hinchman, Alan Higbee, Mick Mcgee, Alex La Reau, Grace E Klinger and 14 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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. OxyR regulates the oxidative stress response inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Boosting Ethanol Productivity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

24 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Jose SerateDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Dan XieDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Edward PohlmannDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Charles DonaldDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Mahboubeh ShabaniDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Li HinchmanDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Alan HigbeeDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Mick McgeeDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Alex La ReauDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Grace E KlingerDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Sheena LiRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science, Wako, Saitama Japan.
Chad L MyersDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN USA.
Charles BooneTerrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada.
Donna M BatesDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Dave CavalierDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Dustin EilertDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Lawrence G OatesDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Gregg SanfordDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Trey K SatoDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Bruce DaleDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Robert LandickDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Jeff PiotrowskiDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Rebecca Garlock OngDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Yaoping ZhangDOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA.
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USMichigan State University · USRIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science · JPUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Mapping the reference genetic network of a eukaryotic cellR01HG005853 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO · PI ANDREWS, BRENDA JEAN, BOONE, CHARLES · 2010 to 2025
$7.6M
Methods for large-scale analysis of chemical-genetic interactionsR01HG005084 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MYERS, CHAD L · 2010 to 2022
$2.9M
Sparse Structural Equation Models for Gene Networks and Chemical GenomicsR01GM104975 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CORAL GABLES · PI CAI, XIAODONG · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005084NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005853NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrobial conversion of lignocellulosic feedstocks into biofuels remains an attractive means to produce sustainable energy. It is essential to produce lignocellulosic hydrolysates in a consistent manner in order to study microbial performance in different feedstock hydrolysates. Because of the potential to introduce microbial contamination from the untreated biomass or at various points during the process, it can be difficult to control sterility during hydrolysate production. In this study, we compared hydrolysates produced from AFEX-pretreated corn stover and switchgrass using two different methods to control contamination: either by autoclaving the pretreated feedstocks prior to enzymatic hydrolysis, or by introducing antibiotics during the hydrolysis of non-autoclaved feedstocks. We then performed extensive chemical analysis, chemical genomics, and comparative fermentations to evaluate any differences between these two different methods used for producing corn stover and switchgrass hydrolysates.

resultsAutoclaving the pretreated feedstocks could eliminate the contamination for a variety of feedstocks, whereas the antibiotic gentamicin was unable to control contamination consistently during hydrolysis. Compared to the addition of gentamicin, autoclaving of biomass before hydrolysis had a minimal effect on mineral concentrations, and showed no significant effect on the two major sugars (glucose and xylose) found in these hydrolysates. However, autoclaving elevated the concentration of some furanic and phenolic compounds. Chemical genomics analyses using Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains indicated a high correlation between the AFEX-pretreated hydrolysates produced using these two methods within the same feedstock, indicating minimal differences between the autoclaving and antibiotic methods. Comparative fermentations with S. cerevisiae and Zymomonas mobilis also showed that autoclaving the AFEX-pretreated feedstocks had no significant effects on microbial performance in these hydrolysates.

conclusionsOur results showed that autoclaving the pretreated feedstocks offered advantages over the addition of antibiotics for hydrolysate production. The autoclaving method produced a more consistent quality of hydrolysate, and also showed negligible effects on microbial performance. Although the levels of some of the lignocellulose degradation inhibitors were elevated by autoclaving the feedstocks prior to enzymatic hydrolysis, no significant effects on cell growth, sugar utilization, or ethanol production were seen during bacterial or yeast fermentations in hydrolysates produced using the two different methods.

Indexed as

Biomass feedstockChemical genomicsFermentationInhibitorsLignocellulosic hydrolysateSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSterilityZymomonas mobilis

Identifiers

PMID26583044
PMCPMC4650398
OpenAlexW2181257242

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.