Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27170322›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2016

Different inocula produce distinctive microbial consortia with similar lignocellulose degradation capacity.

Larisa Cortes-Tolalpa, Diego Javier Jiménez, Maria Julia de Lima Brossi, Joana Falcão Salles, Jan Dirk van Elsas

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Directed Evolution of Microbial Communities.Annual review of biophysics · 2021
    Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Larisa Cortes-TolalpaGenomics Research in Ecology and Evolution in Nature, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747, AG, Groningen, The Netherlands. l.cortes.tolalpa@gmail.com.
Diego Javier JiménezGenomics Research in Ecology and Evolution in Nature, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747, AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maria Julia de Lima BrossiGenomics Research in Ecology and Evolution in Nature, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747, AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joana Falcão SallesGenomics Research in Ecology and Evolution in Nature, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747, AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan Dirk van ElsasGenomics Research in Ecology and Evolution in Nature, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747, AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite multiple research efforts, the current strategies for exploitation of lignocellulosic plant matter are still far from optimal, being hampered mostly by the difficulty of degrading the recalcitrant parts. An interesting approach is to use lignocellulose-degrading microbial communities by using different environmental sources of microbial inocula. However, it remains unclear whether the inoculum source matters for the degradation process. Here, we addressed this question by verifying the lignocellulose degradation potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw by microbial consortia generated from three different microbial inoculum sources, i.e., forest soil, canal sediment and decaying wood. We selected these consortia through ten sequential-batch enrichments by dilution-to-stimulation using wheat straw as the sole carbon source. We monitored the changes in microbial composition and abundance, as well as their associated degradation capacity and enzymatic activities. Overall, the microbial consortia developed well on the substrate, with progressively-decreasing net average generation times. Each final consortium encompassed bacterial/fungal communities that were distinct in composition but functionally similar, as they all revealed high substrate degradation activities. However, we did find significant differences in the metabolic diversities per consortium: in wood-derived consortia cellobiohydrolases prevailed, in soil-derived ones β-glucosidases, and in sediment-derived ones several activities. Isolates recovered from the consortia showed considerable metabolic diversities across the consortia. This confirmed that, although the overall lignocellulose degradation was similar, each consortium had a unique enzyme activity pattern. Clearly, inoculum source was the key determinant of the composition of the final microbial degrader consortia, yet with varying enzyme activities. Hence, in accord with Beyerinck's, "everything is everywhere, the environment selects" the source determines consortium composition.

Indexed as

Microbial ConsortiaBacteriaCellulasesCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseFungiLigninRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil MicrobiologyTriticumCellulasesCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseLigninlignocelluloseRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacterial–fungal consortiaDegrader communities(Hemi) cellulolytic activityLignocelluloseRecalcitrant substrate

Identifiers

PMID27170322
PMCPMC4980425
OpenAlexW2389648433

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.