Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27418359›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2016

Characterization of three plant biomass-degrading microbial consortia by metagenomics- and metasecretomics-based approaches.

Diego Javier Jiménez, Maria Julia de Lima Brossi, Julia Schückel, Stjepan Krešimir Kračun, William George Tycho Willats, 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
7.2field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Engineered microbial consortia for next-generation feedstocks.Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Endophytes in Lignin Valorization: A Novel Approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Deconstruction of Lignin: From Enzymes to Microorganisms.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Diego Javier JiménezDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands. d.j.jimenez.avella@rug.nl.
Maria Julia de Lima BrossiDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Julia SchückelDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C 1871, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stjepan Krešimir KračunDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C 1871, Copenhagen, Denmark.
William George Tycho WillatsDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C 1871, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jan Dirk van ElsasDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 7, 9747 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The selection of microbes by enrichment on plant biomass has been proposed as an efficient way to develop new strategies for lignocellulose saccharification. Here, we report an in-depth analysis of soil-derived microbial consortia that were trained to degrade once-used wheat straw (WS1-M), switchgrass (SG-M) and corn stover (CS-M) under aerobic and mesophilic conditions. Molecular fingerprintings, bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene amplicon sequencing and metagenomic analyses showed that the three microbial consortia were taxonomically distinct. Based on the taxonomic affiliation of protein-encoding sequences, members of the Bacteroidetes (e.g. Chryseobacterium, Weeksella, Flavobacterium and Sphingobacterium) were preferentially selected on WS1-M, whereas SG-M and CS-M favoured members of the Proteobacteria (e.g. Caulobacter, Brevundimonas, Stenotrophomonas and Xanthomonas). The highest degradation rates of lignin (~59 %) were observed with SG-M, whereas CS-M showed a high consumption of cellulose and hemicellulose. Analyses of the carbohydrate-active enzymes in the three microbial consortia showed the dominance of glycosyl hydrolases (e.g. of families GH3, GH43, GH13, GH10, GH29, GH28, GH16, GH4 and GH92). In addition, proteins of families AA6, AA10 and AA2 were detected. Analysis of secreted protein fractions (metasecretome) for each selected microbial consortium mainly showed the presence of enzymes able to degrade arabinan, arabinoxylan, xylan, β-glucan, galactomannan and rhamnogalacturonan. Notably, these metasecretomes contain enzymes that enable us to produce oligosaccharides directly from wheat straw, sugarcane bagasse and willow. Thus, the underlying microbial consortia constitute valuable resources for the production of enzyme cocktails for the efficient saccharification of plant biomass.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobial ConsortiaAerobiosisBacteriaBiotransformationDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalEnzymesLigninPanicumRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNATriticumZea maysDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalEnzymesLigninlignocelluloseRNA, Ribosomal, 16SEnzyme cocktailsMetagenomicsMetasecretomeMicrobial consortiaPlant biomass

Identifiers

PMID27418359
PMCPMC5119850
OpenAlexW2474971645

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.