Cited by 4,726Biofuel production and bioconversionEnzyme Production and CharacterizationAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology

Open access
Lynd, Lee R., Weimer, Paul J., van Zyl, Willem H., Pretorius, Isak S.·2002·Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews

Abstract

Fundamental features of microbial cellulose utilization are examined at successively higher levels of aggregation encompassing the structure and composition of cellulosic biomass, taxonomic diversity, cellulase enzyme systems, molecular biology of cellulase enzymes, physiology of cellulolytic microorganisms, ecological aspects of cellulase-degrading communities, and rate-limiting factors in nature. The methodological basis for studying microbial cellulose utilization is considered relative to quantification of cells and enzymes in the presence of solid substrates as well as apparatus and analysis for cellulose-grown continuous cultures. Quantitative description of cellulose hydrolysis is addressed with respect to adsorption of cellulase enzymes, rates of enzymatic hydrolysis, bioenergetics of microbial cellulose utilization, kinetics of microbial cellulose utilization, and contrasting features compared to soluble substrate kinetics. A biological perspective on processing cellulosic biomass is presented, including features of pretreated substrates and alternative process configurations. Organism development is considered for "consolidated bioprocessing" (CBP), in which the production of cellulolytic enzymes, hydrolysis of biomass, and fermentation of resulting sugars to desired products occur in one step. Two organism development strategies for CBP are examined: (i) improve product yield and tolerance in microorganisms able to utilize cellulose, or (ii) express a heterologous system for cellulose hydrolysis and utilization in microorganisms that exhibit high product yield and tolerance. A concluding discussion identifies unresolved issues pertaining to microbial cellulose utilization, suggests approaches by which such issues might be resolved, and contrasts a microbially oriented cellulose hydrolysis paradigm to the more conventional enzymatically oriented paradigm in both fundamental and applied contexts.

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 · 10.1128/mmbr.66.3.506-577.2002

Cites

782 of 782 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?

  • Reaction conditions of biochemical methods are relatively mild: pretreatment temperature 60-220°C, enzyme hydrolysis temperature about 50°C, and fermentation temperature 20-60°C.

    “Generally, the reaction conditions of biochemical methods are rela-tively mild where pretreatment temperature is 60-220 • C, enzyme hydrolysis temperature is about 50 • C, and fermentation temperature is 20-60 • C [61].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [753]Wolin, M. J. 1990. Rumen fermentation: biochemical interactions between the populations of a microbial community, p. 237-251. In D. E. Akin et al. Microbial and plant opportunities to improve lignocellulose utilization by ruminants. Elsevier Science Publications, New York, N.Y.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynd, L. R., Weimer, P. J., van Zyl, W. H., & Pretorius, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • Department of Microbiology
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Venue
Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
Published
2002-09
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
506-577
ISSN
  • 1092-2172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5557
OpenAlex
W2098839738
Cited by
4,726
References
782
Citations by year
2026: 124 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 152 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 193 · 2021: 253 · 2020: 243 · 2019: 222 · 2018: 222 · 2017: 256 · 2016: 266 · 2015: 305 · 2014: 337 · 2013: 352 · 2012: 341
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (FC36-00GO10591)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Enzyme Production and Characterization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
cellulase enzymes, cellulolytic microorganisms, cellulosic biomass, cellulose hydrolysis, consolidated bioprocessing, cellulase adsorption, enzymatic hydrolysis kinetics, bioenergetics, cellulose pretreatment, continuous culture, solid substrates
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Biotechnology, Cellulose, Enzymes, Gene Expression Regulation, Genetic Engineering, Hydrolysis, Yeasts, Biomass

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