The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cellulose and hemicellulose decomposition by forest soil bacteria proceeds by the action of structurally variable enzymatic systems
Open accessAbstract
Evidence shows that bacteria contribute actively to the decomposition of cellulose and hemicellulose in forest soil; however, their role in this process is still unclear. Here we performed the screening and identification of bacteria showing potential cellulolytic activity from litter and organic soil of a temperate oak forest. The genomes of three cellulolytic isolates previously described as abundant in this ecosystem were sequenced and their proteomes were characterized during the growth on plant biomass and on microcrystalline cellulose. Pedobacter and Mucilaginibacter showed complex enzymatic systems containing highly diverse carbohydrate-active enzymes for the degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose, which were functionally redundant for endoglucanases, β-glucosidases, endoxylanases, β-xylosidases, mannosidases and carbohydrate-binding modules. Luteibacter did not express any glycosyl hydrolases traditionally recognized as cellulases. Instead, cellulose decomposition was likely performed by an expressed GH23 family protein containing a cellulose-binding domain. Interestingly, the presence of plant lignocellulose as well as crystalline cellulose both trigger the production of a wide set of hydrolytic proteins including cellulases, hemicellulases and other glycosyl hydrolases. Our findings highlight the extensive and unexplored structural diversity of enzymatic systems in cellulolytic soil bacteria and indicate the roles of multiple abundant bacterial taxa in the decomposition of cellulose and other plant polysaccharides.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput
Edgar, R. C. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh340 · Cited by 44,662
SPAdes: A New Genome Assembly Algorithm and Its Applications to Single-Cell Sequencing
Bankevich, A., Nurk, S., Antipov, D., Gurevich, A. A., Dvorkin, M., Kulikov, A. S., Lesin, V. M., Nikolenko, S. I., Pham, S., Prjibelski, A. D., et al. (2012) · Journal of Computational Biology · doi:10.1089/cmb.2012.0021 · Cited by 25,987
Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST
Edgar, R. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 · Cited by 20,826
Guindon, S., Dufayard, J.-F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., & Gascuel, O. (2010) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · Cited by 18,376
The RAST Server: Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology
Aziz, R. K., Bartels, D., Best, A. A., DeJongh, M., Disz, T., Edwards, R. A., Formsma, K., Gerdes, S., Glass, E. M., Kubal, M., et al. (2008) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-75 · Cited by 11,729
Lane, D. (1991) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 8,190
The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013
Lombard, V., Golaconda Ramulu, H., Drula, E., Coutinho, P. M., & Henrissat, B. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1178 · Cited by 6,333
Kim, O.-S., Cho, Y.-J., Lee, K., Yoon, S.-H., Kim, M., Na, H., Park, S.-C., Jeon, Y. S., Lee, J.-H., Yi, H., et al. (2012) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.038075-0 · Cited by 5,240
TM4: a free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis
Saeed, A. I., Sharov, V., White, J., Li, J., Liang, W., Bhagabati, N., Braisted, J., Klapa, M., Currier, T., Thiagarajan, M., et al. (2003) · BioTechniques · doi:10.2144/03342mt01 · Cited by 4,837
The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST)
Overbeek, R., Olson, R., Pusch, G. D., Olsen, G. J., Davis, J. J., Disz, T., Edwards, R. A., Gerdes, S., Parrello, B., Shukla, M., et al. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1226 · Cited by 4,524
Cited by
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Self-citationBiological Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Biofuels and Bioproducts: An Overview
Sharma, H. K., Xu, C., & Qin, W. (2019) · Waste and Biomass Valorization · doi:10.1007/s12649-017-0059-y · Cited by 617
Decomposition responses to climate depend on microbial community composition
Glassman, S. I., Weihe, C., Li, J., Albright, M. B. N., Looby, C. I., Martiny, A. C., Treseder, K. K., Allison, S. D., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1811269115 · Cited by 365
Defining Division of Labor in Microbial Communities
Giri, S., Waschina, S., Kaleta, C., & Kost, C. (2019) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2019.06.023 · Cited by 89
Microbial composition and functional diversity differ across urban green infrastructure types
Gill, A. S., Purnell, K., Palmer, M. I., Stein, J., & McGuire, K. L. (2020) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.00912 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- López-Mondéjar, R., Zühlke, D., Becher, D., Riedel, K., & Baldrian, P.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2016-04-29
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25279-25279
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2344622293
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 37.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Cellulose and hemicellulose decomposition by forest soil bacteria proceeds by the action of structurally variable enzymatic systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep25279
- The paper
- López-Mondéjar, R., Zühlke, D., Becher, D., Riedel, K., & Baldrian, P. (2016). Cellulose and hemicellulose decomposition by forest soil bacteria proceeds by the action of structurally variable enzymatic systems. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25279
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.
