ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Fiber-Degrading Microorganisms: Types, Screening and Applications.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fiber-degrading microorganisms are widely recognized for their potential to convert renewable lignocellulosic biomass into animal feed. However, translating this potential into practical application faces five critical yet underappreciated challenges. First, current screening methods, primarily including plate dilution and Congo red staining, are low-throughput, poorly reproducible and fail to capture the synergistic actions of natural microbial consortia. Second, the lack of standardized assays for quantifying cellulolytic activity compromises the reliability of cross-study comparisons. Third, safety assessments for fiber-degrading microorganisms remain superficial, with most studies neglecting mycotoxin production, antibiotic resistance gene transfer and long-term colonization risks. Fourth, fundamental differences between fungal and bacterial degradative systems, such as enzyme multiplicity, oxygen requirements and cellulosome assembly, are rarely considered in strain selection, leading to suboptimal application outcomes. Finally, the vast majority of positive in vitro degradation results fail to translate into improved animal performance in vivo, owing to poor microbial survival in the gastrointestinal tract, mismatched enzyme activity with gut pH and temperature, coupled with the absence of dose-response validation. This review critically evaluates these five bottlenecks across fiber-degrading microorganism types, screening platforms and practical livestock production applications. Overall, future progress should depend less on discovering "novel" strains and more on establishing standardized screening pipelines, rigorous safety frameworks and mechanistic understanding of in vivo efficacy, including direct head-to-head comparisons between fungal enzymes and bacterial probiotics under identical conditions.
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.