ReviewEngineering in life sciences2025
Engineering Strategies for Fungal Cell Disruption in Biotechnological Applications.
Review in Engineering in life sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toxic and useful: harnessing yeast killer toxins for product recovery.Microbial cell factories · 2026Article
- Process Engineering Strategies for Microbial Lipid Production: From Strain Evolution to Industrial-Scale Bioprocessing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Bioprospecting Honey-Derived Microorganisms for the Biological Control of Phytopathogens.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Engineering Strategies for Fungal Cell Disruption in Biotechnological Applications.Engineering in life sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fungal cell disruption plays a critical role in unlocking a wide range of high-value intracellular products such as lipids, proteins, pigments, and bioactive compounds. However, lysing fungal cells is far more challenging than breaking bacterial or algal cells due to their robust and highly structured cell walls. These biological barriers demand a tailored and strategic approach depending on the fungal species, cell morphology, and downstream processing requirements. This review explores the various mechanical and non-mechanical methods used to disrupt fungal cells, beyond outlining the core principles behind each method, the engineering and process factors that influence their performance are emphasized. A comparative analysis is provided, focusing on key parameters like disruption efficiency, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and environmental impact. The review also sheds light on emerging hybrid and integrated approaches, the role of pre-treatment or co-treatment strategies, and the potential for greener and more sustainable alternatives aligned with circular bioeconomy goals. Ultimately, this review aims to serve as a guide for researchers, bioprocess engineers, and industry professionals seeking to optimize fungal bioproduct extraction in a way that is not only technically sound but also economically viable and environmentally responsible, paving the way for more efficient, scalable, and sustainable fungal-based biomanufacturing.
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.