ArticleCurrent microbiology2020
Biochemical and Molecular Characterization of Five Bacillus Isolates Displaying Remarkable Carboxymethyl Cellulase Activities.
Article in Current microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening and genome-wide analysis of lignocellulose-degrading bacteria from humic soil.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Enhanced Activity by Genetic Complementarity: Heterologous Secretion of Clostridial Cellulases byMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biochemical Characterization of Cellulase FromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cellulases have many useful applications in industry and biotechnology. So, identification of new bacterial strains expressing cellulases with better properties is desired. Five soil bacterial strains screened for high carboxymethyl cellulase (CMCase) activities were characterized and identified by 16S rRNA analysis as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (FAY088), B. velezensis (FAY0103), B. tequilensis (FAY0117), B. subtilis (FAY0136), and B. subtilis (FAY0182). Their CMCase activities were 1.49, 1.26, 1.21, 1.21, and 1.24 U/ml, respectively. The maximum CMCase production was attained by growth at 35 °C, pH 6, and 180 rpm for 5 days. Residual activities of CMCases from FAY088 and FAY0117 were 88% or more after growth at 40 °C, which is same as FAY0182 CMCase at 40 and 45 °C. Additionally, FAY0182 retained 73% residual activity at 50 °C. FAY088 and FAY0182 retained more than 85% at pH 7 and 8. Conversely, residual activities from FAY0103 and FAY0136 declined a lot by increasing growth temperature beyond 40 °C and pH beyond 7. The maximum CMCase stability in all isolates was observed at pH 7, 3-h incubation, and 40 °C except for FAY0103 CMCase showed optimum temperature at 30 °C. More than 70% CMCase stability was retained in case of FAY088 at 50 °C, FAY0117 at 50-70 °C, and FAY0136 at 50-60 °C. FAY088 CMCase seemed to be the lest sensitive to temperature variation as it displayed residual activities 67, 72, 78, 84, 77, 74, and 72% at pH 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Finally, the five CMCase-producing isolates are recommended further enzyme applications in biotechnology and industry.
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.