Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30675183›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2019

Multiple levers for overcoming the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass.

Evert K Holwerda, Robert S Worthen, Ninad Kothari, Ronald C Lasky, Brian H Davison, Chunxiang Fu, Zeng-Yu Wang, Richard A Dixon, Ajaya K Biswal, Debra Mohnen and 13 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. EngineeringMetabolic engineering communications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Deconstruction byLife science alliance · 2026
    Article
  5. EngineeringbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The role of AdhE mutations inJournal of bacteriology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Solid-state NMR at natural isotopic abundance for bioenergy applications.Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Evert K Holwerda1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 14 Engineering drive, Hanover, NH 03755 USA.
Robert S Worthen1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 14 Engineering drive, Hanover, NH 03755 USA.
Ninad Kothari2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Ronald C Lasky1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 14 Engineering drive, Hanover, NH 03755 USA.
Brian H Davison2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Chunxiang Fu2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Zeng-Yu Wang2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Richard A Dixon2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Ajaya K Biswal2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Debra Mohnen2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Richard S Nelson2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Holly L Baxter2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Mitra Mazarei2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
C Neal Stewart
Wellington Muchero2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Gerald A Tuskan2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Charles M Cai2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Erica E Gjersing2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Mark F Davis2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Michael E Himmel2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Charles E Wyman2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Paul Gilna2BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA.
Lee R Lynd1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, 14 Engineering drive, Hanover, NH 03755 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass is widely recognized as a key barrier to cost-effective biological processing to fuels and chemicals, but the relative impacts of physical, chemical and genetic interventions to improve biomass processing singly and in combination have yet to be evaluated systematically. Solubilization of plant cell walls can be enhanced by non-biological augmentation including physical cotreatment and thermochemical pretreatment, the choice of biocatalyst, the choice of plant feedstock, genetic engineering of plants, and choosing feedstocks that are less recalcitrant natural variants. A two-tiered combinatoric investigation of lignocellulosic biomass deconstruction was undertaken with three biocatalysts ( Results: In the absence of augmentation and under the conditions tested, increased total carbohydrate solubilization (TCS) was observed for 8 of the 9 combinations of switchgrass modifications and biocatalysts tested, and statistically significant for five of the combinations. Our results indicate that recalcitrance is not a trait determined by the feedstock only, but instead is coequally determined by the choice of biocatalyst. TCS with Conclusion: Based on our results as well as literature studies, it appears that some form of non-biological augmentation will likely be necessary for the foreseeable future to achieve high TCS for most cellulosic feedstocks. However, our results show that this need not necessarily involve thermochemical processing, and need not necessarily occur prior to biological conversion. Under the conditions tested, the relative magnitude of TCS increase was augmentation > biocatalyst choice > plant choice > plant modification > plant natural variants. In the presence of augmentation, plant modification, plant natural variation, and plant choice exhibited a small, statistically non-significant impact on TCS.

Indexed as

Biomass deconstructionCaldicellulosiruptor besciiCELFClostridium thermocellumCotreatmentFungal cellulasePopulus natural variantsRecalcitranceTransgenic switchgrass

Identifiers

PMID30675183
PMCPMC6335785

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.