ReviewFEMS yeast research2025
Recent progress in engineering yeast producers of cellulosic ethanol.
Review in FEMS yeast research, 2025. 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sedimentation accelerates mixed-substrate conversion during sequential batch cultivation of a co-culture of sugar-specialist yeast strains.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparative Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reprogramming a Hgt-family Kluyveromyces marxianus sugar transporter by site-directed mutagenesis to enable co-consumption of glucose and xylose.FEMS yeast research · 2026Article
- Creating a large designer cellulosome in yeast to boost ethanol production.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Thermotolerant yeasts promoting climate-resilient bioproduction.FEMS yeast research · 2025Review
- Yeast-a handy multitool in your research: a report from ISSY38.FEMS yeast research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The production of second-generation (2 G) bioethanol, a key sector in industrial biotechnology, addresses the demand for sustainable energy by utilizing lignocellulosic biomass. Efficient fermentation of all sugars from lignocellulose hydrolysis is essential to enhance ethanol titers, improve biomass-to-biofuel yields, and lower costs. This review compares the potential of recombinant yeast strains for 2 G bioethanol production, focusing on their ability to metabolize diverse sugars, particularly xylose. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, engineered for enhanced pentose and hexose utilization, is compared with the nonconventional yeasts Scheffersomyces stipitis, Kluyveromyces marxianus, and Ogataea polymorpha. Key factors include sugar assimilation pathways, cofermentation with glucose, oxygen requirements, tolerance to hydrolysate inhibitors, and process temperature. Saccharomyces cerevisiae shows high ethanol tolerance but requires genetic modification for xylose use. Scheffersomyces stipitis ferments xylose naturally but lacks robustness. Kluyveromyces marxianus offers thermotolerance and a broad substrate range with lower ethanol yields, while O. polymorpha enables high-temperature fermentation but yields modest ethanol from xylose. The comparative analysis clarifies each yeast's advantages and limitations, supporting the development of more efficient 2 G bioethanol production strategies. Strain selection must balance ethanol yield, stress tolerance, and temperature adaptability to meet industrial requirements for cost-effective lignocellulosic bioethanol production.
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.