Abstract

Fiber, the most abundant organic polymer in nature, is widely recognized as a foundational sustainable material with diverse applications across industrial, medical, and consumer domains. Owing to its renewability and widespread availability, it also serves as a critical alternative energy source in agriculture, enabling more sustainable livestock production through the efficient conversion of fibrous feedstuffs, thereby supporting the principles of a circular bioeconomy. Cellulose, which constitutes up to 80% of plant fiber, contains tightly packed crystalline regions that confer strong resistance to microbial degradation. Other key obstacles to efficient cellulose digestion in the gut include the absence of critical cellulolytic genes, low enzymatic activity, a lack of natural activators, and the presence of cellulase inhibitors. Synthetic biology provides innovative molecular-level strategies to overcome key technical barriers in cellulose degradation. These approaches employ targeted modifications at nucleic acid and protein levels, including the introduction of engineered genes, synthetic regulators, and optimized enzymes, to develop high-performance microbial systems with enhanced cellulose-degrading capabilities. Furthermore, genetic modifications like the knockout of inhibitory genes and knock-in of activator genes, combined with rational redesign of multi-enzyme complexes, can significantly improve the secretion and catalytic efficiency of cellulases. When integrated with artificial intelligence, synthetic biology enables predictive screening and precision engineering of microbial strains for highly efficient cellulose degradation. This review comprehensively summarizes recent advances in synthetic biology approaches for improving cellulose degradation and highlights how these tools can optimize fiber utilization in sustainable agricultural and industrial applications.

Keywords

Data Availability

Abbreviations

References

  1. 1.Li T, Chen C, Brozena AH, Zhu JY, Xu L, Driemeier C, et al. Developing fibrillated cellulose as a sustainable technological material. Nature. 2021;590(7844).(2021)org/10.1038/s41586-020-03167-7.: 47.
    10.1038/s41586-020-03167-7
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  2. 2.Raju JSN, Depoures MV, Shariff J, Chakravarthy S. Characterization of natural cellulosic fibers from stem of symphirema involucratum plant. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(13).(2022)2021.1875376.: 5355.
    10.1080/15440478.2021.1875376
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  3. 3.Mahmud MA, Anannya FR. Sugarcane bagasse-a source of cellulosic fiber for diverse applications. Heliyon. 2021;7(8).(2021)e07771. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.heliyon.
    10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07771
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  4. 4.Lou C, Zhou Y, Yan A, Liu Y. Extraction cellulose from corn-stalk taking advantage of pretreatment technology with immobilized enzyme. RSC Adv. 2021;12(2).(2021)org/10.1039/d1ra07513f.: 1208.
    10.1039/d1ra07513f
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  5. 5.Wubneh F, Gideon RK, Wu D, Km B. Extraction and characterization of fibers from corn husk. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(16).(2022)12862–9. https://doi. org/10.1080/15440478.: 12862.
    10.1080/15440478.2022.2077885
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  6. 6.Zhao X, Li RC, Liu W, Liu W, Xue Y, Sun R, et al. Estimation of crop residue production and its contribution to carbon neutrality in China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2024;203.(2024)107450. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.resconrec.: 107450.
    10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107450
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  7. 7.Ren G, Yao B, Huang H, Gao X. Influence of sisal fibers on the mechanical performance of ultra-high performance concretes. Constr Build Mater. 2021;286.(2021)122958. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.conbuildmat.: 122958.
    10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122958
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  8. 8.Lobregas MOS, Buniao EVD, Leaño JL Jr. Alkali-enzymatic treatment ofBambusa blumeanatextile fibers for natural fiber-based textile material production. Ind Crops Prod. 2023;194.(2023)116268. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.indcrop.: 116268.
    10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116268
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  9. 9.Li X, Yang Y, Fan Y, Feng Q, Cui FZ, Watari F. Biocomposites reinforced by fibers or tubes as scaffolds for tissue engineering or regenerative medicine. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(5).(2014)a.34801.: 1580.
    10.1002/jbm.a.34801
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  10. 10.Kaniuk Ł, Stachewicz U. Development and advantages of biodegradable PHA polymers based on electrospun PHBV fibers for tissue engineering and other biomedical applications. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2021;7(12).(2021)1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00757.: 5339.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  11. 11.Hua DK, Hendriks WH, Xiong BH, Pellikaan WF. Starch and cellulose degradation in the rumen and applications of metagenomics on ruminal microorganisms. Animals. 2022;12(21).(2022)org/10.3390/ani12213020.: 3020.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  12. 12.Adebowale TO, Yao K, Oso AO. Major cereal carbohydrates in relation to intestinal health of monogastric animals.(2019)a review.Anim Nutr.: 331.
    10.1016/j.aninu.2019.09.001
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  13. 13.Tejeda OJ, Kim WK. The effects of cellulose and soybean hulls as sources of dietary fiber on the growth performance, organ growth, gut histomorphology, and nutrient digestibility of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2020;99(12).(2020)6828–36. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 6828.
    10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.081
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  14. 14.Weimer PJ. Degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose by ruminal microorganisms. Microorganisms. 2022;10(12).(2022)org/10.3390/microorganisms10122345.: 2345.
    10.3390/microorganisms10122345
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  15. 15.Stypinski JD, Weiss WP, Carroll AL, Kononoff PJ. Effect of acid detergent lignin concentration for diets formulated to be similar in neutral detergent fiber content on energy utilization in lactating Jersey cows. J Dairy Sci. 2024;107(8).(2024)3168/jds.2023-24318.: 5699.
    10.3168/jds.2023-24318
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  16. 16.Binh Truong N, Van Thu N. Effect of crossbreeding and dietary neutral detergent fiber (NDF) levels on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, rumen parameters and nitrogen retention of beef cattle. J Glob Innov Agric Sci. 2023;11(4).(2023)22194/JGIAS/23.1094.: 579.
    10.22194/JGIAS/23.1094
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  17. 17.Li H, Yin J, Tan B, Chen J, Zhang H, Li Z, et al. Physiological function and application of dietary fiber in pig nutrition.(2021)a review.Anim Nutr.: 259.
    10.1016/j.aninu.2020.11.011
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  18. 18.Zhao Y, Liu C, Niu J, Cui Z, Zhao X, Li W, et al. Impacts of dietary fiber level on growth performance, apparent digestibility, intestinal development, and colonic microbiota and metabolome of pigs. J Anim Sci. 2023;101.(2023)org/10.1093/jas/skad174.
    10.1093/jas/skad174
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  19. 19.Hu R, Li S, Diao H, Huang C, Yan J, Wei X, et al. The interaction between dietary fiber and gut microbiota, and its effect on pig intestinal health. Front Immunol. 2023;14.(2023)1095740. https://doi. org/10.3389/fimmu.: 1095740.
    10.3389/fimmu.2023.1095740
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  20. 20.Lu S, Zhao Q, Guan Y, Sun Z, Li W, Guo S, et al. The communication mechanism of the gut-brain axis and its effect on central nervous system diseases.(2024)a systematic review.Biomed Pharmacother.: 117207.
    10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117207
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  21. 21.Lee H, Song J, Lee B, Cha J, Lee H. Food carbohydrates in the gut.(2024)structural diversity, microbial utilization, and analytical strategies.Food Sci Biotechnol.: 2123.
    10.1007/s10068-024-01648-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  22. 22.Jin SS, Wijerathne CUB, Au-Yeung KKW, Lei HG, Yang CB, Karmin O. Effects of high- and low-fiber diets on intestinal oxidative stress in growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2022;100(11).(2022)org/10.1093/jas/skac306.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  23. 23.Luu M, Monning H, Visekruna A. Exploring the molecular mechanisms underlying the protective effects of microbial SCFAs on intestinal tolerance and food allergy. Front Immunol. 2020;11.(2020)1225. https://doi. org/10.3389/fimmu.: 1225.
    10.3389/fimmu.2020.01225
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  24. 24.Pu G, Hou L, Du T, Zhou W, Liu C, Niu P, et al. Increased proportion of fiber-degrading microbes and enhanced cecum development jointly promote host to digest appropriate high-fiber diets. mSystems. 2023;8(1).(2023)1128/msystems.00937-22.
    10.1128/msystems.00937-22
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  25. 25.Ojo A. An overview of lignocellulose and its biotechnological importance in high-value product production. Fermentation. 2023;9(11).(2023)org/10.3390/fermentation9110990.: 990.
    10.3390/fermentation9110990
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  26. 26.Chuang W, Lin L, Shih H, Shy Y, Chang S, Lee T. The potential utilization of high-fiber agricultural by-products as monogastric animal feed and feed additives.(2021)a review.Animals.: 2098.
    10.3390/ani11072098
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  27. 27.Chokshi S, Parmar V, Gohil P, Chaudhary V. Chemical composition and mechanical properties of natural fibers. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(10).(2022)2020.1848738.: 3942.
    10.1080/15440478.2020.1848738
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  28. 28.Rao J, Lv Z, Chen G, Peng F. Hemicellulose.(2023)structure, chemical modification, and application.Prog Polym Sci.: 101675.
    10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2023.101675
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  29. 29.PÉrez S, Samain D. Structure and engineering of celluloses. Advances in carbohydrate chemistry and biochemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2010;64:25–116.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2318(10)64003-6.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  30. 30.Jarvis MC. Hydrogen bonding and other non-covalent interactions at the surfaces of cellulose microfibrils. Cellulose. 2023;30(2).(2023)org/10.1007/s10570-022-04954-3.: 667.
    10.1007/s10570-022-04954-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  31. 31.Salem KS, Kasera NK, Rahman MA, Jameel H, Habibi Y, Eichhorn SJ, et al. Comparison and assessment of methods for cellulose crystallinity determination. Chem Soc Rev. 2023;52(18).(2023)org/10.1039/d2cs00569g.: 6417.
    10.1039/d2cs00569g
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  32. 32.Bhatia T, Bose D, Sharma D, Patel D. A review on cellulose degrading microbes and its applications. Ind Biotechnol. 2024;20(1).(2024)2023.0025.: 26.
    10.1089/ind.2023.0025
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  33. 33.Bhatia SK, Jagtap SS, Bedekar AA, Bhatia RK, Patel AK, Pant D, et al. Recent developments in pretreatment technologies on lignocellulosic biomass.(2020)effect of key parameters, technological improvements, and challenges.Bioresour Technol.: 122724.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  34. 34.Krause DO, Denman SE, Mackie RI, Morrison M, Rae AL, Attwood GT, et al. Opportunities to improve fiber degradation in the rumen.(2003)microbiology, ecology, and genomics.FEMS Microbiol Rev.: 663.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  35. 35.Hu J, Tian D, Renneckar S, Saddler JN. Enzyme mediated nanofibrillation of cellulose by the synergistic actions of an endoglucanase, lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase (LPMO) and xylanase. Sci Rep. 2018;8.(2018)org/10.1038/s41598-018-21016-6.: 3195.
    10.1038/s41598-018-21016-6
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  36. 36.Yan S, Xu Y, Yu X. From induction to secretion.(2021)a complicated route for cellulase production inTrichoderma reesei.Bioresour Bioprocess.: 107.
    10.1186/s40643-021-00461-8
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  37. 37.Vu V, Farkas C, Riyad O, Bujna E, Kilin A, Sipiczki G, et al. Enhancement of the enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency of wheat bran using theBacillusstrains and their consortium. Bioresour Technol. 2022;343.(2022)2021.126092.: 126092.
    10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126092
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  38. 38.John JA, Selvarajan E. Genomic analysis of lignocellulolytic enzyme producing novelStreptomycessp.MS2A for the bioethanol applications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;250.(2023)126138. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ijbiomac.: 126138.
    10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126138
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  39. 39.Raut MP, Couto N, Karunakaran E, Biggs CA, Wright PC. Deciphering the unique cellulose degradation mechanism of the ruminal bacteriumFibrobacter succinogenesS85. Sci Rep. 2019;9.(2019)org/10.1038/s41598-019-52675-8.: 16542.
    10.1038/s41598-019-52675-8
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  40. 40.Noda S, Kawai Y, Miyazaki T, Tanaka T, Kondo A. Creation of endoglucanase-secretingStreptomyces lividansfor enzyme production using cellulose as the carbon source. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97(13).(2013)org/10.1007/s00253-013-4880-3.: 5711.
    10.1007/s00253-013-4880-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  41. 41.Gomez Del Pulgar EM, Saadeddin A. The cellulolytic system ofThermobifida fusca. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2014;40(3).(2014)2013.776512.: 236.
    10.3109/1040841X.2013.776512
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  42. 42.Wood TM, Wilson CA, McCrae SI. The cellulase system of the anaerobic rumen fungusNeocallimastix frontalis.(1995)studies on the properties of fractions rich in endo-(1→4)-ß-D-glucanase activity.Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.: 177.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  43. 43.Hall M, Rubin J, Behrens SH, Bommarius AS. The cellulose-binding domain of cellobiohydrolase Cel7A fromTrichoderma reeseiis also a thermostabilizing domain. J Biotechnol. 2011;155(4).(2011)370–6. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.jbiotec.: 370.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  44. 44.Uzcategui E, Johansson G, Ek B, Pettersson G. The 1,4-β-D-glucan glucanohydrolases from Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Re-assessment of their significance in cellulose degradation mechanisms. J Biotechnol. 1991;21.(1991)org/10.1016/0168-1656(91)90267-Y.: 143.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  45. 45.Zhou H, Li T, Yu Z, Ju J, Zhang H, Tan H, et al. A lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase fromMyceliophthora thermophilaand its synergism with cellobiohydrolases in cellulose hydrolysis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;139.(2019)570–6. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ijbiomac.: 570.
    10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.004
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  46. 46.Yang T, Guo Y, Gao N, Li X, Zhao J. Modification of a cellulase system by engineeringPenicillium oxalicumto produce cellulose nanocrystal. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;234.(2020)115862. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.carbpol.: 115862.
    10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115862
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  47. 47.Bélaich JP, Tardif C, Bélaich A, Gaudin C. The cellulolytic system ofClostridium cellulolyticum. J Biotechnol. 1997;57(1–3).(1997)org/10.1016/S0168-1656(97)00085-0.: 3.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  48. 48.Deng L, Mori Y, Sermsathanaswadi J, Apiwatanapiwat W, Kosugi AB. Cellulose hydrolysis ability of aClostridium thermocellumcellulosome containing small-size scaffolding protein CipA. J Biotechnol. 2015;212.(2015)144–52. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.jbiotec.: 144.
    10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.08.016
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  49. 49.Koukiekolo R, Cho HY, Kosugi A, Inui M, Yukawa H, Doi RH. Degradation of corn fiber byClostridium cellulovoranscellulases and hemicellulases and contribution of scaffolding protein CbpA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(7).(2005)7.3504.: 3504-11.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  50. 50.Zhu Y, McBride MJ. The unusual cellulose utilization system of the aerobic soil bacteriumCytophaga hutchinsonii. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101(19).(2017)org/10.1007/s00253-017-8467-2.: 7113.
    10.1007/s00253-017-8467-2
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  51. 51.Bai X, Wang X, Wang S, Ji X, Guan Z, Zhang W, et al. Functional studies of β-glucosidases ofCytophaga hutchinsoniiand their effects on cellulose degradation. Front Microbiol. 2017;8.(2017)140. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 140.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  52. 52.Reichenbach H, Lang E, Schumann P, Spröer C.Byssovorax cruentagen. nov., sp. nov., nom. rev., a cellulose-degrading myxobacterium.(2006)rediscovery of `Myxococcus cruentus' thaxter 1897.Int J Syst Evol Microbiol.: 2357.
    10.1099/ijs.0.63628-0
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  53. 53.Huang Z, Ni G, Dai L, Zhang W, Feng S, Wang F. Biochemical characterization of novel GH6 endoglucanase fromMyxococcussp. B6–1 and its effects on agricultural straws saccharification. Foods. 2023;12(13).(2023)org/10.3390/foods12132517.: 2517.
    10.3390/foods12132517
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  54. 54.Saraf N, Sharma G. Comparative genomic insight into the myxobacterial carbohydrate-degrading potential. Front Microbiol. 2025;16.(2025)1550287. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 1550287.
    10.3389/fmicb.2025.1550287
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  55. 55.Mohr KI, Wolf C, Nübel U, Szafrańska AK, Steglich M, Hennessen F, et al. A polyphasic approach leads to seven new species of the cellulose-decomposing genusSorangium,Sorangium ambruticinumsp. nov.,Sorangium arenaesp. nov.,Sorangium bulgaricumsp. nov.,Sorangium dawidiisp. nov.,Sorangium kenyensesp. nov.,Sorangium orientalesp. nov. andSorangium reichenbachiisp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68(11).(2018)0.003034.: 3576.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  56. 56.Santos CR, Paiva JH, Sforça ML, Neves JL, Navarro RZ, Cota J, et al. Dissecting structure-function-stability relationships of a thermostable GH5-CBM3 cellulase fromBacillus subtilis168. Biochem J. 2012;441(1).(2012)org/10.1042/BJ20110869.: 95.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  57. 57.Malik WA, Javed S. Biochemical characterization of cellulase fromBacillus subtilisstrain and its effect on digestibility and structural modifications of lignocellulose rich biomass. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9.(2021)800265. https://doi. org/10.3389/fbioe.: 800265.
    10.3389/fbioe.2021.800265
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  58. 58.Wang J, Bao F, Wei H, Zhang Y. Screening of cellulose-degrading bacteria and optimization of cellulase production fromBacillus cereusA49 through response surface methodology. Sci Rep. 2024;14.(2024)org/10.1038/s41598-024-58540-7.: 7755.
    10.1038/s41598-024-58540-7
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  59. 59.Fujimoto N, Kosaka T, Nakao T, Yamada M.Bacillus licheniformisbearing a high cellulose-degrading activity, which was isolated as a heat-resistant and micro-aerophilic microorganism from bovine rumen. Open Biotechnol J. 2011;5(1).(2011)org/10.2174/1874070701105010007.: 7.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  60. 60.Christopherson MR, Dawson JA, Stevenson DM, Cunningham AC, Bramhacharya S, Weimer PJ, et al. Unique aspects of fiber degradation by the ruminal ethanologenRuminococcus albus7 revealed by physiological and transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1).(2014)org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-1066.: 1066.
    10.1186/1471-2164-15-1066
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  61. 61.Chassard C, Delmas E, Robert C, Lawson PA, Bernalier-Donadille A. Ruminococcus champanellensis sp. nov., A cellulose-degrading bacterium from human gut microbiota. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62(1).(2012)0.027375-0.: 138.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  62. 62.Pettipher GL, Latham MJ. Characteristics of enzymes produced byRuminococcus flavefacienswhich degrade plant cell walls. J Gen Microbiol. 1979;110(1).(1979)org/10.1099/00221287-110-1-21.: 21.
    10.1099/00221287-110-1-21
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  63. 63.Noda S, Ito Y, Shimizu N, Tanaka T, Ogino C, Kondo A. Over-production of various secretory-form proteins inStreptomyces lividans. Protein Expr Purif. 2010;73(2).(2010)198–202. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.pep.: 198.
    10.1016/j.pep.2010.05.011
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  64. 64.Luzics S, Baka E, Otto M, Kosztik J, Szalontai H, Bata-Vidács I, et al. High-quality de novo genome assembly and functional genomic insights intoThermobifidaalbaDSM43795T, a mesophilic actinobacterium isolated from garden soil. Biol Futura. 2025;76.(2025)org/10.1007/s42977-025-00283-1.: 541.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  65. 65.Zhang F, Zhang XM, Yin YR, Li WJ. Cloning, expression and characterization of a novel GH5 exo/endoglucanase ofThermobifida halotoleransYIM 90462T by genome mining. J Biosci Bioeng. 2015;120(6).(2015)644–9. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.jbiosc.: 644.
    10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.04.012
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  66. 66.Kameshwar AKS, Qin W. Genome wide analysis reveals the extrinsic cellulolytic and biohydrogen generating abilities ofNeocallimastigomycotafungi. J Genomics. 2018;6.(2018)7150/jgen.25648.: 74.
    10.7150/jgen.25648
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  67. 67.Yang Y, Zhu N, Yang J, Lin Y, Liu J, Wang R, et al. A novel bifunctional acetyl xylan esterase/arabinofuranosidase fromPenicillium chrysogenumP33 enhances enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose. Microb Cell Fact. 2017;16(1).(2017)org/10.1186/s12934-017-0777-7.: 166.
    10.1186/s12934-017-0777-7
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  68. 68.Yassein AS, Gherbawy YA, Gaber MA, El-Messeiry S, El-Dawy EGAM. Cellulase gene expression in the thermophilicThermomyces lanuginosusisolated from compost. Biomass Bioenerg. 2024;190.(2024)107375. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.biombioe.: 107375.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  69. 69.Hoshino E, Sasaki Y, Mori K, Okazaki M, Nisizawa K, Kanda T. Electron microscopic observation of cotton cellulose degradation by exo- and endo-type cellulases fromIrpex lacteus. J Biochem. 1993;114(2).(1993)jbchem.a124160.: 236.
    10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a124160
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  70. 70.Pang A, Wang H, Luo Y, Yang Z, Liu Z, Wang Z, et al. Dissecting cellular function and distribution of β-glucosidases inTrichoderma reesei. mBio. 2021;12(3).(2021)1128/mBio.03671-20.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  71. 71.Huang Z, Ni G, Zhao X, Wang F, Qu M. Characterization of a GH8 β-1,4-glucanase fromBacillus subtilisB111 and its saccharification potential for agricultural straws. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021;31(10).(2021)2105.05026.: 1446.
    10.4014/jmb.2105.05026
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  72. 72.Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS. Microbial cellulose utilization.(2002)fundamentals and biotechnology.Microbiol Mol Biol Rev.: 739.
    10.1128/mmbr.66.4.739.2002
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  73. 73.Jin XY, Wang JK, Wang Q. Microbial β-glucanases.(2023)production, properties, and engineering.World J Microbiol Biotechnol.: 106.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  74. 74.Linton SM. Review.(2020)the structure and function of cellulase (endo-β-1,4-glucanase) and hemicellulase (β-1,3-glucanase and endo-β-1,4-mannase) enzymes in invertebrates that consume materials ranging from microbes, algae to leaf litter.Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol.: 110354.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  75. 75.Sinha T, Sharma K, Yazdani SS. Chapter 4 - Cellobiohydrolases. Glycoside Hydrolases. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2023. p. 77–95.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91805-3.00002-2.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  76. 76.Huang C,Feng Y, Patel G, Xu XQ, Qian J, Liu Q, et al. Production, immobilization and characterization of beta-glucosidase for application in cellulose degradation from a novelAspergillus versicolor. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;177.(2021)437–46. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ijbiomac.: 437.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  77. 77.Zhang KD, Li W, Wang Y, Zheng Y, Tan F, Ma X, et al. Processive degradation of crystalline cellulose by a multimodular endoglucanase via a wirewalking mode. Biomacromol. 2018;19(5).(2018)biomac.8b00340.: 1686.
    10.1021/acs.biomac.8b00340
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  78. 78.Ganner T, Bubner P, Eibinger M, Mayrhofer C, Plank H, Nidetzky B. Dissecting and reconstructing synergism.(2012)in situ visualization of cooperativity among cellulases.J Biol Chem.: 43215.
    10.1074/jbc.M112.419952
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  79. 79.Hu Y, Li M, Liu Z, Song X, Qu Y, Qin Y. Carbon catabolite repression involves physical interaction of the transcription factor CRE1/CreA and the tup1–cyc8 complex inPenicillium oxalicumandTrichoderma reesei. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14(1).(2021)org/10.1186/s13068-021-02092-9.: 244.
    10.1186/s13068-021-02092-9
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  80. 80.Zhu Z, Zou G, Chai S, Xiao M, Wang Y, Wang P, et al. The protein methyltransferase TrSAM inhibits cellulase gene expression by interacting with the negative regulator ACE1 inTrichoderma reesei. Commun Biol. 2024;7(1).(2024)org/10.1038/s42003-024-06072-1.: 375.
    10.1038/s42003-024-06072-1
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  81. 81.Sveholm E, Mattila H, Aro N, Valkonen M, Paasela T, Pakula TM. Transcriptomic and metabolic changes inTrichoderma reeseicaused by mutation in xylanase regulator 1 (xyr1). Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod. 2024;17(1).(2024)org/10.1186/s13068-024-02556-8.: 106.
    10.1186/s13068-024-02556-8
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  82. 82.Luo Y, Valkonen M, Jackson RE, Palmer JM, Bhalla A, Nikolaev I, et al. Modification of transcriptional factor ACE3 enhances protein production inTrichoderma reeseiin the absence of cellulase gene inducer. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2020;13.(2020)org/10.1186/s13068-020-01778-w.: 137.
    10.1186/s13068-020-01778-w
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  83. 83.Portnoy T, Margeot A, Seidl-Seiboth V, Le Crom S, Ben Chaabane F, Linke R, et al. Differential regulation of the cellulase transcription factors XYR1, ACE2, and ACE1 inTrichoderma reeseistrains producing high and low levels of cellulase. Eukaryot Cell. 2011;10(2).(2011)1128/EC.00208-10.: 262.
    10.1128/EC.00208-10
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  84. 84.Wu B, Zheng S, Pedroso MM, Guddat LW, Chang S, He B, et al. Processivity and enzymatic mechanism of a multifunctional family 5 endoglucanase fromBacillus subtilisBS-5 with potential applications in the saccharification of cellulosic substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;11(1).(2018)org/10.1186/s13068-018-1022-2.: 20.
    10.1186/s13068-018-1022-2
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  85. 85.Haitjema CH, Gilmore SP, Henske JK, Solomon KV, de Groot R, Kuo A, et al. A parts list for fungal cellulosomes revealed by comparative genomics. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2.(2017)17087. https://doi. org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.: 17087.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  86. 86.Brown JL, Swift CL, Mondo SJ, Seppala S, Salamov A, Singan V, et al. Co-cultivation of the anaerobic fungusCaecomyces churroviswithMethanobacterium bryantiienhances transcription of carbohydrate binding modules, dockerins, and pyruvate formate lyases on specific substrates. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14(1).(2021)org/10.1186/s13068-021-02083-w.: 234.
    10.1186/s13068-021-02083-w
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  87. 87.Schwarz W. The cellulosome and cellulose degradation by anaerobic bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001;26.(2001)org/10.1007/s002530100710.: 634.
    10.1007/s002530100710
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  88. 88.Galera-Prat A, Vera AM, Moraïs S, Vazana Y, Bayer EA, Carrión-Vázquez M. Impact of scaffoldin mechanostability on cellulosomal activity. Biomater Sci. 2020;8(13).(2020)org/10.1039/C9BM02052G.: 3601.
    10.1039/C9BM02052G
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  89. 89.Fontes CMGA, Gilbert HJ. Cellulosomes.(2010)highly efficient nanomachines designed to deconstruct plant cell wall complex carbohydrates.Annu Rev Biochem.: 655.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  90. 90.Gad S, Ayakar S. Protein scaffolds.(2021)a tool for multi-enzyme assembly.Biotechnol Rep.
    10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00670
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  91. 91.Artzi L, Bayer EA, Moraïs S. Cellulosomes.(2017)bacterial nanomachines for dismantling plant polysaccharides.Nat Rev Microbiol.: 83.
    10.1038/nrmicro.2016.164
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  92. 92.Peng X, Wilken SE, Lankiewicz TS, Gilmore SP, Brown JL, Henske JK, et al. Genomic and functional analyses of fungal and bacterial consortia that enable lignocellulose breakdown in goat gut microbiomes. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6(4).(2021)org/10.1038/s41564-020-00861-0.: 499.
    10.1038/s41564-020-00861-0
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  93. 93.Boyanova L, Gergova R, Markovska R. Coculture systems to study interactions between anaerobic bacteria and intestinal epithelium. Anaerobe. 2025;92.(2025)102949. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.anaerobe.: 102949.
    10.1016/j.anaerobe.2025.102949
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  94. 94.Resch MG, Donohoe BS, Baker JO, Decker SR, Bayer EA, Beckham GT, et al. Fungal cellulases and complexed cellulosomal enzymes exhibit synergistic mechanisms in cellulose deconstruction. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013;6(6).(2013)org/10.1039/c3ee00019b.: 1858.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  95. 95.Hong W, Zhang J, Feng Y, Mohr G, Lambowitz AM, Cui G, et al. The contribution of cellulosomal scaffoldins to cellulose hydrolysis byClostridium thermocellumanalyzed by using thermotargetrons. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2014;7.(2014)org/10.1186/1754-6834-7-80.: 80.
    10.1186/1754-6834-7-80
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  96. 96.Arntzen MØ, Várnai A, Mackie RI, Eijsink VGH, Pope PB. Outer membrane vesicles fromFibrobacter succinogenesS85 contain an array of carbohydrate-active enzymes with versatile polysaccharide-degrading capacity. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19(7).(2017)1111/1462-2920.13770.: 2701.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  97. 97.Zhang W, Li L, Li T, Li X, Wang X, Yao Q, et al. SGBP-B-like bimodular cellulose-binding protein CHU_1279 is essential for cellulose utilization byCytophaga hutchinsonii. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2025;91(4).(2025)1128/aem.02471-24.
    10.1128/aem.02471-24
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  98. 98.Wang S, Zhao D, Zhang W, Lu X. Identification of a cell-surface protein involved in glucose assimilation and disruption of the crystalline region of cellulose byCytophaga hutchinsonii. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;46(11).(2019)org/10.1007/s10295-019-02212-3.: 1479.
    10.1007/s10295-019-02212-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  99. 99.Neumann AP, Weimer PJ, Suen G. A global analysis of gene expression inFibrobacter succinogenesS85 grown on cellulose and soluble sugars at different growth rates. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;11.(2018)org/10.1186/s13068-018-1290-x.: 295.
    10.1186/s13068-018-1290-x
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  100. 100.Du J, Zhang X, Li X, Zhao J, Liu G, Gao B, et al. The cellulose binding region inTrichoderma reeseicellobiohydrolase I has a higher capacity in improving crystalline cellulose degradation than that ofPenicillium oxalicum. Biores Technol. 2018;226.(2018)19–25. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.biortech.: 19.
    10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.050
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  101. 101.Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ. A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12(5).(2014)org/10.1038/nrmicro3239.: 381.
    10.1038/nrmicro3239
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  102. 102.Meng F, Ellis T. The second decade of synthetic biology: 2010–2020. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5174.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19092-2.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  103. 103.Mirsalami SM, Mirsalami M. Advances in genetically engineered microorganisms.(2025)transforming food production through precision fermentation and synthetic biology.Future Foods.: 100601.
    10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100601
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  104. 104.Pacesa M, Pelea O, Jinek M. Past, present, and future of CRISPR genome editing technologies. Cell. 2024;187(5).(2024)1076–100. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.cell.: 1076.
    10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.042
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  105. 105.Becker S, Boch J. TALE and TALEN genome editing technologies. Gene Genome Ed. 2021;2.(2021)100007. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ggedit.: 100007.
    10.1016/j.ggedit.2021.100007
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  106. 106.Khalil AM. The genome editing revolution.(2020)review.J Genet Eng Biotechnol.: 68.
    10.1186/s43141-020-00078-y
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  107. 107.Jiang F, Doudna JA. CRISPR-Cas9 structures and mechanisms. Annu Rev Biophys. 2017;46(1).(2017)org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-062215-010822.: 505.
    10.1146/annurev-biophys-062215-010822
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  108. 108.Gunjikar TP, Sawant SB, Joshi JB. Shear deactivation of cellulase, exoglucanase, endoglucanase, and β-glucosidase in a mechanically agitated reactor. Biotechnol Prog. 2001;17(6).(2001)org/10.1021/bp010114u.: 1166.
    10.1021/bp010114u
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  109. 109.Akinsemolu AA, Onyeaka H, Odion S, Adebanjo I. ExploringBacillus subtilis.(2024)ecology, biotechnological applications, and future prospects.J Basic Microbiol.: 2300614.
    10.1002/jobm.202300614
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  110. 110.Sarmikasoglou E, Sumadong P, Dagaew G, Johnson ML, Vinyard JR, Salas-Solis G, et al. Effects ofBacillus subtilison in vitro ruminal fermentation and methane production. Transl Anim Sci. 2024;8.(2024)org/10.1093/tas/txae054.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  111. 111.Liu G, Zhang K, Gong H, Yang K, Wang X, Zhou G, et al. Whole genome sequencing and the lignocellulose degradation potential ofBacillus subtilisRLI2019 isolated from the intestine of termites. Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod. 2023;16(1).(2023)org/10.1186/s13068-023-02375-3.: 130.
    10.1186/s13068-023-02375-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  112. 112.Ji L, Zhang L, Liu H, Shen J, Zhang Y, Lu L, et al.Bacillus subtilisM6 improves intestinal barrier, antioxidant capacity and gut microbial composition in AA broiler. Front Nutr. 2022;9.(2022)965310. https://doi. org/10.3389/fnut.: 965310.
    10.3389/fnut.2022.965310
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  113. 113.Harwood CR, Wipat A. Sequencing and functional analysis of the genome ofBacillus subtilisstrain 168. FEBS Lett. 1996;389(1).(1996)org/10.1016/0014-5793(96)00524-8.: 84.
    10.1016/0014-5793(96)00524-8
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  114. 114.Liu G, Gong H, Tang H, Meng Z, Wang Z, Cui W, et al. Enhanced lignocellulose degradation inBacillus subtilisRLI2019 through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated chromosomal integration of ternary cellulase genes. Int J Biol Macromol. 2025;306(3).(2025)141727. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ijbiomac.: 141727.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  115. 115.Liu Y, Liu S, Dong S, Li R, Feng Y, Cui Q. Determination of the native features of the exoglucanase Cel48S fromClostridium thermocellum. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;11.(2018)org/10.1186/s13068-017-1009-4.: 6.
    10.1186/s13068-017-1009-4
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  116. 116.Deng Y, Wang SY. Sorption of cellulases in biofilm enhances cellulose degradation byBacillus subtilis. Microorganisms. 2022;10(8).(2022)org/10.3390/microorganisms10081505.: 1505.
    10.3390/microorganisms10081505
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  117. 117.Li KF, Cai DB, Wang ZQ, He ZL, Chen SW. Development of an efficient genome editing tool inBacillus licheniformisusing CRISPR-Cas9 nickase. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84(6).(2018)1128/AEM.02608-17.
    10.1128/AEM.02608-17
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  118. 118.Xin Q, Chen Y, Chen Q, Wang B, Pan L. Development and application of a fast and efficient CRISPR-based genetic toolkit inBacillus amyloliquefaciensLB1ba02. Microb Cell Fact. 2022;21(1).(2022)org/10.1186/s12934-022-01832-2.: 99.
    10.1186/s12934-022-01832-2
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  119. 119.Perez HG, Stevenson CK, Lourenco JM, Callaway TR. Understanding rumen microbiology.(2024)an overview.Encyclopedia.: 148.
    10.3390/encyclopedia4010013
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  120. 120.Druzhinina IS, Kubicek CP. Genetic engineering ofTrichoderma reeseicellulases and their production. Microb Biotechnol. 2017;10(6).(2017)1111/1751-7915.12726.: 1485.
    10.1111/1751-7915.12726
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  121. 121.Rangel Pedersen N, Tovborg M, Soleimani Farjam A, Della Pia EA. Multicomponent carbohydrase system fromTrichoderma reesei.(2021)a toolbox to address complexity of cell walls of plant substrates in animal feed.PLoS ONE.
    10.1371/journal.pone.0251556
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  122. 122.Sakita GZ, de Mello Tavares Lima P, Abdalla Filho AL, Bompadre TFV, Ovani VS, de Miranda e Silva Chaves C, et al. Treating tropical grass with fibrolytic enzymes from the fungusTrichoderma reesei.(2022)effects on animal performance, digestibility and enteric methane emissions of growing lambs.Anim Feed Sci Technol.: 115253.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  123. 123.Zhang J, Li K, Sun Y, Yao C, Liu W, Liu H, et al. An efficient CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system based on a multiple sgRNA processing platform inTrichoderma reeseifor strain improvement and enzyme production. Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod. 2024;17(1).(2024)org/10.1186/s13068-024-02468-7.: 22.
    10.1186/s13068-024-02468-7
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  124. 124.Antoniêto AC, de Paula RG, Castro Ldos S, Silva-Rocha R, Persinoti GF, Silva RN. Trichoderma reesei CRE1-mediated carbon catabolite repression in response to sophorose through RNA sequencing analysis. Curr Genomics. 2016;17(2).(2016)org/10.2174/1389202917666151116212901.: 119.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  125. 125.Rajakumara E, Abhishek S, Nitin K, Saniya D, Bajaj P, Schwaneberg U, et al. Structure and cooperativity in substrate-enzyme interactions.(2022)perspectives on enzyme engineering and inhibitor design.ACS Chem Biol.: 266.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  126. 126.Chen Y, Gao Y, Wang Z, Peng N, Ran X, Chen T, et al. The influence of trctf1 gene knockout by CRISPR–Cas9 on cellulase synthesis byTrichoderma reeseiwith various soluble inducers. Fermentation. 2023;9(8).(2023)org/10.3390/fermentation9080746.: 746.
    10.3390/fermentation9080746
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  127. 127.Froidurot A, Julliand V. Cellulolytic bacteria in the large intestine of mammals. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(1).(2022)2031694. https://doi. org/10.1080/19490976.: 2031694.
    10.1080/19490976.2022.2031694
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  128. 128.Krauss J, Zverlov VV, Schwarz WH.In vitroreconstitution of the completeClostridium thermocellumcellulosome and synergistic activity on crystalline cellulose. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(12).(2012)1128/AEM.07959-11.: 4301.
    10.1128/AEM.07959-11
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  129. 129.Lamote B, da Fonseca MJM, Vanderstraeten J, Meert K, Elias M, Briers Y. Current challenges in designer cellulosome engineering. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2023;107(9).(2023)org/10.1007/s00253-023-12474-8.: 2755.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  130. 130.Moraïs S, Stern J, Kahn A, Galanopoulou AP, Yoav S, Shamshoum M, et al. Enhancement of cellulosome-mediated deconstruction of cellulose by improving enzyme thermostability. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9.(2016)org/10.1186/s13068-016-0577-z.: 164.
    10.1186/s13068-016-0577-z
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  131. 131.Israeli-Ruimy V, Bule P, Jindou S, Dassa B, Moraïs S, Borovok I, et al. Complexity of theRuminococcus flavefaciensFD-1 cellulosome reflects an expansion of family-related protein-protein interactions. Sci Rep. 2017;7.(2017)org/10.1038/srep42355.: 42355.
    10.1038/srep42355
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  132. 132.Hamberg Y, Ruimy-Israeli V, Dassa B, Barak Y, Lamed R, Cameron K, et al. Elaborate cellulosome architecture ofAcetivibrio cellulolyticusrevealed by selective screening of cohesin-dockerin interactions. PeerJ. 2014;2.(2014)7717/peerj.636.
    10.7717/peerj.636
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  133. 133.Zhivin O, Dassa B, Moraïs S, Utturkar SM, Brown SD, Henrissat B, et al. Unique organization and unprecedented diversity of theBacteroides(Pseudobacteroides)cellulosolvenscellulosome system. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10.(2017)org/10.1186/s13068-017-0898-6.: 211.
    10.1186/s13068-017-0898-6
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  134. 134.Duarte M, Carvalho AL, Ferreira MC, Caires B, Romão MJ, Prates JAM, et al. Tripartite binding mode of cohesin-dockerin complexes fromRuminococcus flavefaciensinvolving naturally truncated dockerins. J Biol Chem. 2025;301(7).(2025)110325. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.jbc.: 110325.
    10.1016/j.jbc.2025.110325
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  135. 135.Ha-Tran DM, Nguyen TTM, Huang C.Clostridium thermocellumas a promising source of genetic material for designer cellulosomes.(2021)an overview.Catalysts.: 996.
    10.3390/catal11080996
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  136. 136.Nakazawa H, Okada I, Ito T, Ishigaki Y, Kumagai I, Umetsu M. Combinatorial optimization of the hybrid cellulase complex structure designed from modular libraries. Sci Rep. 2024;14.(2024)org/10.1038/s41598-024-73541-2.: 22429.
    10.1038/s41598-024-73541-2
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  137. 137.Shi L, Wang M, Wang XJ. Application of artificial intelligence in life science.(2025)historical review and future perspectives.Fundam Res.
    10.1016/j.fmre.2024.10.014
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  138. 138.Gupta V, Liao W, Choudhary A, Agrawal A. Evolution of artificial intelligence for application in contemporary materials science. MRS Commun. 2023;13(5).(2023)org/10.1557/s43579-023-00433-3.: 754.
    10.1557/s43579-023-00433-3
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  139. 139.Luong TTH, Poeaim S. Multi-objective optimization of lignocellulolytic enzyme cocktail production fromPseudolagarobasidium acaciicolaTDW-48 by artificial neural network-genetic algorithm (ANN-GA) strategy and its application in lignocellulose waste bioconversion. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2025;15(6).(2025)org/10.1007/s13399-024-05802-z.: 9283.
    10.1007/s13399-024-05802-z
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  140. 140.Mao L, Wu Z, Kang J, Sun R, Li J, Yao W, et al. Inoculation with quorum-sensing bacteria accelerates straw decomposition.(2025)a novel strategy for lignocellulose valorization.Ind Crop Prod.: 121246.
    10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121246
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  141. 141.Wang X, Yin X, Jiang D, Zhao H, Wu Z, Zhang O, et al. Multi-modal deep learning enables efficient and accurate annotation of enzymatic active sites. Nat Commun. 2024;15.(2024)org/10.1038/s41467-024-51511-6.: 7348.
    10.1038/s41467-024-51511-6
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  142. 142.Guo C, Ma X, Gao F, Guo Y. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11.(2023)1143157. https://doi. org/10.3389/fbioe.: 1143157.
    10.3389/fbioe.2023.1143157
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  143. 143.Liu S, Xiao F, Li Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Shi G. Establishment of the CRISPR-Cpf1 gene editing system inBacillus licheniformisand multiplexed gene knockout. Synth Syst Biotechnol. 2025;10(1).(2025)08.002.: 39.
    10.1016/j.synbio.2024.08.002
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  144. 144.Chen S, Liu Q, Li D. Synthetic microbial community enhances lignocellulose degradation at the composting thermophilic phase.(2025)metagenomic and metabolic pathway insights.Chem Eng J.: 165847.
    10.1016/j.cej.2025.165847
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  145. 145.Liu Q, Xie Z, Tang S, Xie Q, He X, Li D. Synthetic microbial community enhances lignocellulose degradation during composting by assembling fungal communities. Bioresour Technol. 2025;419.(2025)132068. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.biortech.: 132068.
    10.1016/j.biortech.2025.132068
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  146. 146.Yu KB, Son C, Özcan E, Chandra A, Paramo J, Varghese A, et al. Complex carbohydrate utilization by gut bacteria modulates host food consumption. Nat Commun. 2025;16.(2025)org/10.1038/s41467-025-63372-8.: 8408.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar

Acknowledgements

Funding

Ethics Declaration

Rights and Permissions