Cited by 54Biofuel production and bioconversionAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

Dynamic bacterial and fungal microbiomes during sweet sorghum ensiling impact bioethanol production

Open access
Gallagher, Daniella, Parker, David, Allen, Damian J., Tsesmetzis, Nicolas·2018·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

Significant low-cost biofuel production volumes could be achieved from commercial-scale silage by redirecting lactic acid fermentation to ethanol production. A temporal metagenomic analysis on ensiled sweet sorghum inoculated with an ethanologenic yeast has been conducted to understand the underlying microbial processes during bioethanol production. Individual silage buckets approximating silage piles were prepared with freshly harvested material and supplemented with ethanologenic yeast, sulfuric acid or both. The ensiling progress was assessed using high performance liquid chromatography, microbial taxonomic identification and abundance. The combined treatment with Saccharomyces and acid led to a steady reduction of bacterial abundance and microbial diversity with Lactobacillus becoming the dominant genus during the late timepoints. Furthermore, the addition of acid to inhibit bacterial growth hindered Saccharomyces ability to compete with native yeasts like Candida. Knowledge of the response of the in-situ microbial community to the various treatments during ensiling will help improve current methodologies for bioethanol production.

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 · 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.053

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gallagher, D., Parker, D., Allen, D. J., & Tsesmetzis, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Shell (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Tsesmetzis, Nicolas
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
264
Pages
163-173
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804352776
Cited by
54
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
sweet sorghum, silage, bioethanol production, lactic acid fermentation, Saccharomyces, sulfuric acid treatment, Lactobacillus, Candida, microbial community dynamics, fungal microbiome, bacterial flora, microbial diversity, silage fermentation
MeSH terms
Mycobiome, Ethanol, Fermentation, Lactobacillus, Silage, Sorghum, Biofuels

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