Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33597033›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2021

Mechanistic strategies of microbial communities regulating lignocellulose deconstruction in a UK salt marsh.

Daniel R Leadbeater, Nicola C Oates, Joseph P Bennett, Yi Li, Adam A Dowle, Joe D Taylor, Juliana Sanchez Alponti, Alexander T Setchfield, Anna M Alessi, Thorunn Helgason and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Tight Interaction between the Native SeagrassPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel R LeadbeaterCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. daniel.leadbeater@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2228-5604
Nicola C OatesCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Joseph P BennettCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Yi LiCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Adam A DowleBioscience Technology Facility, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Joe D TaylorSchool of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK.
Juliana Sanchez AlpontiCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Alexander T SetchfieldCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Anna M AlessiCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Thorunn HelgasonDepartment of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Simon J McQueen-MasonCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. simon.mcqueenmason@york.ac.uk.
Neil C BruceCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. neil.bruce@york.ac.uk.
University of York · GBUniversity of Bradford · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I018492/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J014443/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K020358/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L001926/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSalt marshes are major natural repositories of sequestered organic carbon with high burial rates of organic matter, produced by highly productive native flora. Accumulated carbon predominantly exists as lignocellulose which is metabolised by communities of functionally diverse microbes. However, the organisms that orchestrate this process and the enzymatic mechanisms employed that regulate the accumulation, composition and permanence of this carbon stock are not yet known. We applied meta-exo-proteome proteomics and 16S rRNA gene profiling to study lignocellulose decomposition in situ within the surface level sediments of a natural established UK salt marsh.

resultsOur studies revealed a community dominated by Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Deltaproteobacteria that drive lignocellulose degradation in the salt marsh. We identify 42 families of lignocellulolytic bacteria of which the most active secretors of carbohydrate-active enzymes were observed to be Prolixibacteracea, Flavobacteriaceae, Cellvibrionaceae, Saccharospirillaceae, Alteromonadaceae, Vibrionaceae and Cytophagaceae. These families secreted lignocellulose-active glycoside hydrolase (GH) family enzymes GH3, GH5, GH6, GH9, GH10, GH11, GH13 and GH43 that were associated with degrading Spartina biomass. While fungi were present, we did not detect a lignocellulolytic contribution from fungi which are major contributors to terrestrial lignocellulose deconstruction. Oxidative enzymes such as laccases, peroxidases and lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases that are important for lignocellulose degradation in the terrestrial environment were present but not abundant, while a notable abundance of putative esterases (such as carbohydrate esterase family 1) associated with decoupling lignin from polysaccharides in lignocellulose was observed.

conclusionsHere, we identify a diverse cohort of previously undefined bacteria that drive lignocellulose degradation in the surface sediments of the salt marsh environment and describe the enzymatic mechanisms they employ to facilitate this process. Our results increase the understanding of the microbial and molecular mechanisms that underpin carbon sequestration from lignocellulose within salt marsh surface sediments in situ and provide insights into the potential enzymatic mechanisms regulating the enrichment of polyphenolics in salt marsh sediments. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

WetlandsGeologic SedimentsLigninMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SUnited KingdomLigninlignocelluloseRNA, Ribosomal, 16SCarbohydrate esteraseCarbon cyclingCAZymeCE1Community profilingLignocelluloseProteomicsSalt marshTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID33597033
PMCPMC7890819
OpenAlexW3129762839

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.