ArticleEnzyme and microbial technology2018
Characterisation of novel biomass degradation enzymes from the genome of Cellulomonas fimi.
Article in Enzyme and microbial technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose in chili pepper straw waste using Cellulomonas iranensis 7-12, which was isolated from naturally decayed chili pepper straw.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Production of a bacterial secretome highly efficient for the deconstruction of xylans.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Article
- Insights into the xylan degradation system of Cellulomonas sp. B6: biochemical characterization of rCsXyn10A and rCsAbf62A.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Complete genome sequencing and investigation on the fiber-degrading potential of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain TL106 from the tibetan pig.BMC microbiology · 2022Article
- Enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass using a novel, thermotolerant recombinant xylosidase enzyme fromRSC advances · 2022Article
- Coconut Mesocarp-Based Lignocellulosic Waste as a Substrate for Cellulase Production from High Promising Multienzyme-ProducingMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Optimisation of xylanases production by two Cellulomonas strains and their use for biomass deconstruction.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Microbial bioprospecting for lignocellulose degradation at a unique Greek environment.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Metagenomic Insights Into the Taxonomic and Functional Features ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent analyses of genome sequences belonging to cellulolytic bacteria have revealed many genes potentially coding for cellulosic biomass degradation enzymes. Annotation of these genes however, is based on few biochemically characterised examples. Here we present a simple strategy based on BioBricks for the rapid screening of candidate genes expressed in Escherichia coli. As proof of principle we identified over 70 putative biomass degrading genes from bacterium Cellulomonas fimi, expressing a subset of these in BioBrick format. Six novel genes showed activity in E. coli. Four interesting enzymes were characterised further. α-l-arabinofuranosidase AfsB, β-xylosidases BxyF and BxyH and multi-functional β-cellobiosidase/xylosidase XynF were partially purified to determine their optimum pH, temperature and kinetic parameters. One of these enzymes, BxyH, was unexpectedly found to be highly active at strong alkaline pH and at temperatures as high as 100 °C. This report demonstrates a simple method of quickly screening and characterising putative genes as BioBricks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.