↓ Skip to main content

Characterization of natural co-cultures of Piromyces with Methanobrevibacter ruminantium from yaks grazing on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: a microbial consortium with high potential in plant biomass…

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Characterization of natural co-cultures of Piromyces with Methanobrevibacter ruminantium from yaks grazing on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: a microbial consortium with high potential in plant biomass degradation
Published in
AMB Express, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0459-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ya-Qin Wei, Hong-Jian Yang, Rui-Jun Long, Zhi-Ye Wang, Bin-Bin Cao, Qin-Chang Ren, Tian-Tian Wu

Abstract

Anaerobic fungi reside in the gut of herbivore and synergize with associated methanogenic archaea to decompose ingested plant biomass. Despite their potential for use in bioconversion industry, only a few natural fungus-methanogen co-cultures have been isolated and characterized. In this study we identified three co-cultures of Piromyces with Methanobrevibacter ruminantium from the rumen of yaks grazing on the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau. The representative co-culture, namely (Piromyces + M. ruminantium) Yak-G18, showed remarkable polysaccharide hydrolase production, especially xylanase. Consequently, it was able to degrade various lignocellulose substrates with a biodegrading capability superior to most previously identified fungus or fungus-methanogen co-culture isolates. End-product profiling analysis validated the beneficial metabolic impact of associated methanogen on fungus as revealed by high-yield production of methane and acetate and sustained growth on lignocellulose. Together, our data demonstrated a great potential of (Piromyces + M. ruminantium) Yak-G18 co-culture for use in industrial bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 42%
Chemical Engineering 2 17%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

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 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,960,835
of 14,291,740 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#323
of 903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,056
of 269,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,291,740 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 903 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 269,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.