4.1 Article

Evaluation of Cellulolytic and Hemicellulolytic Abilities of Fungi Isolated from Coffee Residue and Sawdust Composts

期刊

MICROBES AND ENVIRONMENTS
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 220-227

出版社

JAPANESE SOC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY, DEPT BIORESOURCE SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1264/jsme2.ME10210

关键词

fungi; cellulolytic activity; hemicellulolytic activity; AZCL-substrates; compost

资金

  1. Egyptian government
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23688010] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the evaluation of cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic fungi isolated from sawdust compost (SDC) and coffee residue compost (CRC). To identify fungal isolates, the ITS region of fungal rRNA was amplified and sequenced. To evaluate enzyme production, isolates were inoculated onto wheat bran agar plates, and enzymes were extracted and tested for cellulase, xylanase, beta-glucanase, mannanase, and protease activities using different azurine cross-linked (AZCL) substrates. In total, 18 isolates from SDC and 29 isolates from CRC were identified and evaluated. Four genera (Aspergillus, Galactomyces, Mucor, and Penicillium) and five genera (Aspergillus, Coniochaeta, Fusarium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma/Hypocrea) were dominant in SDC and CRC, respectively. Penicillium sp., Trichoderma sp., and Aspergillus sp. displayed high cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic activities, while Mucor isolates exhibited the highest beta-glucanase and mannanase activities. The enzyme analyses revealed that Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Mucor isolates significantly contributed to the degradation of SDC, whereas Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Trichoderma isolates had a dominant role in the degradation of CRC. Notably, isolates SDCF5 (P. crustosum), CRCF6 (P. verruculosum), and CRCF2 and CRCF16 (T. harzianum/H. lixii) displayed high activity regarding cellulose and hemicellulose degradation, which indicates that these species could be beneficial for the improvement of biodegradation processes involving lignocellulosic materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据