↓ Skip to main content

Transgenic Plant-Produced Hydrolytic Enzymes and the Potential of Insect Gut-Derived Hydrolases for Biofuels

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transgenic Plant-Produced Hydrolytic Enzymes and the Potential of Insect Gut-Derived Hydrolases for Biofuels
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00675
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan D. Willis, Mitra Mazarei, C. Neal Stewart

Abstract

Various perennial C4 grass species have tremendous potential for use as lignocellulosic biofuel feedstocks. Currently available grasses require costly pre-treatment and exogenous hydrolytic enzyme application to break down complex cell wall polymers into sugars that can then be fermented into ethanol. It has long been hypothesized that engineered feedstock production of cell wall degrading (CWD) enzymes would be an efficient production platform for of exogenous hydrolytic enzymes. Most research has focused on plant overexpression of CWD enzyme-coding genes from free-living bacteria and fungi that naturally break down plant cell walls. Recently, it has been found that insect digestive tracts harbor novel sources of lignocellulolytic biocatalysts that might be exploited for biofuel production. These CWD enzyme genes can be located in the insect genomes or in symbiotic microbes. When CWD genes are transformed into plants, negative pleiotropic effects are possible such as unintended cell wall digestion. The use of codon optimization along with organelle and tissue specific targeting improves CWD enzyme yields. The literature teaches several important lessons on strategic deployment of CWD genes in transgenic plants, which is the focus of this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Environmental Science 4 9%
Chemistry 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,330,976
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,160
of 20,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,458
of 338,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#403
of 525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,264 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.