Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30078136›Full record

ReviewApplied microbiology and biotechnology2018

Protein hyperproduction in fungi by design.

Scott E Baker

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Optimization of mannanase expression inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Engineered FungusJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Phenotype to genotype inCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Grand Challenges in Fungal Biotechnology.Frontiers in fungal biology · 2020
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Scott E BakerDepartment of Energy Joint BioEnergy Institute, Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA. scott.baker@pnnl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5085-3106
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The secretion of enzymes used by fungi to digest their environment has been exploited by humans for centuries for food and beverage production. More than a century after the first biotechnology patent, we know that the enzyme cocktails secreted by these amazing organisms have tremendous use across a number of industrial processes. Secreting the maximum titer of enzymes is critical to the economic feasibility of these processes. Traditional mutagenesis and screening approaches have generated the vast majority of strains used by industry for the production of enzymes. Until the emergence of economical next generation DNA sequencing platforms, the majority of the genes mutated in these screens remained uncharacterized at the sequence level. In addition, mutagenesis comes with a cost to an organism's fitness, making tractable rational strain design approaches an attractive alternative. As an alternative to traditional mutagenesis and screening, controlled manipulation of multiple genes involved in processes that impact the ability of a fungus to sense its environment, regulate transcription of enzyme-encoding genes, and efficiently secrete these proteins will allow for rational design of improved fungal protein production strains.

Indexed as

Industrial MicrobiologyFungal ProteinsFungiMetabolic EngineeringFungal ProteinsBiodesignBiotechnologyEnzymeFungiHyperproductionProteinSecretion

Identifiers

PMID30078136
PMCPMC6153651
OpenAlexW2885440226

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.