Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30538133›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2019

Systematic deletions in the cellobiohydrolase (CBH) Cel7A from the fungus

Corinna Schiano-di-Cola, Nanna Røjel, Kenneth Jensen, Jeppe Kari, Trine Holst Sørensen, Kim Borch, Peter Westh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2019. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Engineering cellulases for conversion of lignocellulosic biomass.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Removal ofBiotechnology for biofuels · 2020
    Article
  20. Activity of fungal β-glucosidases on cellulose.Biotechnology for biofuels · 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

7 authors.

Corinna Schiano-di-ColaFrom the Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Building 28, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Nanna RøjelFrom the Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Building 28, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Kenneth JensenNovozymes A/S, Krogshøjvej 36, DK-2880 Bagsværd, Denmark, and.
Jeppe KariFrom the Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Building 28, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Trine Holst SørensenFrom the Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Building 28, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Kim BorchNovozymes A/S, Krogshøjvej 36, DK-2880 Bagsværd, Denmark, and.
Peter Wesththe Department of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, Building 224, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark petwe@dtu.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glycoside hydrolase family 7 (GH7) cellulases are some of the most efficient degraders of cellulose, making them particularly relevant for industries seeking to produce renewable fuels from lignocellulosic biomass. The secretome of the cellulolytic model fungus

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseFungal ProteinsSequence DeletionTrichodermaCrystallography, X-RayProtein Structure, SecondaryCellulose 1,4-beta-CellobiosidaseFungal ProteinsCel7ACel7Bcellobiohydrolasecellulasecelluloseendoglucanaseenzyme kineticsloop engineeringprotein engineeringTrichoderma reesei

Identifiers

PMID30538133
PMCPMC6369288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.