Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tolerance and adaptation of ethanologenic yeasts to lignocellulosic inhibitory compounds

Keating, Jeffrey D., Panganiban, Chris, Mansfield, Shawn D.·2006·Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Abstract

Synthetic mixtures of predominant lignocellulosic hexose sugars were supplemented with separate aliquots of three inhibitory compounds (furfural, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), and acetic acid) in a series of concentrations and fermented by the spent sulfite liquor (SSL)‐adapted yeast strain Tembec T1 and the natural isolate Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) Y‐1528 to compare tolerance and assess fermentative efficacy. The performance of Y‐1528 exceeded that of Tembec T1 by a significant margin, with faster hexose sugar consumption, higher ethanol productivity, and in the case of furfural and HMF, faster inhibitor consumption. Nevertheless, furfural had a dose‐proportionate effect on sugar consumption rate and ethanol productivity in both strains, but did not substantially affect ethanol yield. HMF had a similar effect on sugar consumption rate and ethanol productivity, and also lowered ethanol yield. Surprisingly, acetic acid had the least impact on sugar consumption rate and ethanol productivity, and stimulated ethanol yield at moderate concentrations. Sequential iterations of softwood (SW) and hardwood (HW) SSL were subsequently inoculated with the two yeast strains in order to compare adaptation to, and performance in lignocellulosic substrates in a cell recycle batch fermentation (CRBF) regime. Both strains were severely affected by the HW SSL, which was attributed to specific syringyl lignin‐derived degradation products and synergistic interactions between inhibitors. Though ethanologenic capacity was preserved, a net loss of performance was evident from both strains, indicating the absence of adaptation to the substrates, regardless of the sequence in which the SSL types were employed. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bit.20838

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Keating, J. D., Panganiban, C., & Mansfield, S. D.
Venue
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-02-09
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
1196-1206
ISSN
  • 0006-3592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0290
OpenAlex
W2113935469
Cited by
195
References
4
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tolerance and adaptation of ethanologenic yeasts to lignocellulosic inhibitory compounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bit.20838
The paper
Keating, J. D., Panganiban, C., & Mansfield, S. D. (2006). Tolerance and adaptation of ethanologenic yeasts to lignocellulosic inhibitory compounds. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20838

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.