Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32123275›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Neotropical termite microbiomes as sources of novel plant cell wall degrading enzymes.

Matias Romero Victorica, Marcelo A Soria, Ramón Alberto Batista-García, Javier A Ceja-Navarro, Surendra Vikram, Maximiliano Ortiz, Ornella Ontañon, Silvina Ghio, Liliana Martínez-Ávila, Omar Jasiel Quintero García and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. 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
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. F1000Research · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Matias Romero Victorica *Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4481-7835
Marcelo A Soria *Cátedra de Microbiología Agrícola, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, INBA-CONICET, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8556-147X
Ramón Alberto Batista-GarcíaCentro de Investigación en Dinámica Celular, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Básicas y Aplicadas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Javier A Ceja-NavarroBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2954-3477
Surendra VikramDepartment Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Maximiliano OrtizDepartment Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Ornella OntañonInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Silvina GhioInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Liliana Martínez-ÁvilaCentro de Investigación en Dinámica Celular, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Básicas y Aplicadas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Omar Jasiel Quintero GarcíaCentro de Investigación en Dinámica Celular, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Básicas y Aplicadas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Clara EtcheverryBiología de los Invertebrados. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales y Agrimensura. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Corrientes, Argentina.
Eleonora CamposInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Donald CowanDepartment Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Centre for Microbial Ecology and Genomics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Joel ArneodoInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Paola M TaliaInstituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular (IABIMO), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Consejo Nacional de investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina. talia.paola@inta.gob.ar.
Instituto de Agrobiotecnología del Litoral · ARUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos · MXUniversity of Pretoria · ZAConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · USNational Institute of Industrial Technology · ARNational University of the Northeast · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we used shotgun metagenomic sequencing to characterise the microbial metabolic potential for lignocellulose transformation in the gut of two colonies of Argentine higher termite species with different feeding habits, Cortaritermes fulviceps and Nasutitermes aquilinus. Our goal was to assess the microbial community compositions and metabolic capacity, and to identify genes involved in lignocellulose degradation. Individuals from both termite species contained the same five dominant bacterial phyla (Spirochaetes, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Fibrobacteres and Bacteroidetes) although with different relative abundances. However, detected functional capacity varied, with C. fulviceps (a grass-wood-feeder) gut microbiome samples containing more genes related to amino acid metabolism, whereas N. aquilinus (a wood-feeder) gut microbiome samples were enriched in genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism and cellulose degradation. The C. fulviceps gut microbiome was enriched specifically in genes coding for debranching- and oligosaccharide-degrading enzymes. These findings suggest an association between the primary food source and the predicted categories of the enzymes present in the gut microbiomes of each species. To further investigate the termite microbiomes as sources of biotechnologically relevant glycosyl hydrolases, a putative GH10 endo-β-1,4-xylanase, Xyl10E, was cloned and expressed in Escherichia coli. Functional analysis of the recombinant metagenome-derived enzyme showed high specificity towards beechwood xylan (288.1 IU/mg), with the optimum activity at 50 °C and a pH-activity range from 5 to 10. These characteristics suggest that Xy110E may be a promising candidate for further development in lignocellulose deconstruction applications.

Indexed as

WoodAnimalsBacteriaBacterial ProteinsCelluloseCell WallGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGlycoside HydrolasesIsopteraPlant CellsSpecies SpecificityBacterial ProteinsCelluloseGlycoside Hydrolases

Identifiers

PMID32123275
PMCPMC7052144
OpenAlexW3010323834

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.