title: Bioconversion of lignocellulose materials.
abstract: One of the most economically viable processes for the bioconversion of many lignocellulosic waste is represented by white rot fungi. Phanerochaete chrysosporium is one of the important commercially cultivated fungi which exhibit varying abilities to utilize different lignocellulosic as growth substrate. Examination of the lignocellulolytic enzyme profiles of the two organisms Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Rhizopus stolonifer show this diversity to be reflected in qualitative variation in the major enzymatic determinants (ie cellulase, xylanase, ligninase and etc) required for substrate bioconversion. For example P. chrysosporium which is cultivated on highly lignified substrates such as wood (or) sawdust, produces two extracellular enzymes which have associated with lignin deploymerization. (Mn peroxidase and lignin peroxidase). Conversely Rhizopus stolonifer which prefers high cellulose and low lignin containg substrates produce a family of cellulolytic enzymes including at least cellobiohydrolases and β-glucosidases, but very low level of recognized lignin degrading enzymes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Microbiology, VHNSN College 626001, Tamilnadu, S. India.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pothiraj
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kanmani
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Balaji
keywords: Bio-fuel; Bioconversion; Cellobiohydrolases; Lignocellulosic enzymes; White rot fungi
references.citation: Curr Opin Microbiol. 2003 Jun;6(3):219-28
references.pmid: 12831897
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2003 Dec;27(5):663-93
references.pmid: 14638418
references.citation: Phytochemistry. 2003 Jul;63(5):505-15
references.pmid: 12809710
references.citation: Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 1997;57:261-87
references.pmid: 9204752
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2003 Mar 28;220(2):235-40
references.pmid: 12670686
references.citation: Biotechnol Adv. 2000 Aug;18(5):355-83
references.pmid: 14538100
references.citation: Biochem J. 1995 Oct 1;311 ( Pt 1):67-74
references.pmid: 7575482
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2002 May;83(1):1-11
references.pmid: 12058826
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2000 Dec;124(4):1515-9
references.pmid: 11115868
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1987 May;169(5):2195-201
references.pmid: 3553159
references.citation: Microbiol Rev. 1993 Sep;57(3):605-22
references.pmid: 8246842
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Apr;61(4):1591-8
references.pmid: 7747973
references.citation: FEBS Lett. 1991 Feb 11;279(1):30-2
references.pmid: 1847342
references.citation: Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2002;22(1):33-64
references.pmid: 11958335
references.citation: World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 1995 Sep;11(5):541-5
references.pmid: 24414910
references.citation: Biochem J. 1988 Oct 15;255(2):445-50
references.pmid: 3060110
references.citation: Biochemistry (Mosc). 2002 Aug;67(8):850-71
references.pmid: 12223085
references.citation: Structure. 2001 Dec;9(12):1183-90
references.pmid: 11738044
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 1986 Apr;166(1):269-74
references.pmid: 3957868
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 Oct;56(10):3117-24
references.pmid: 2126700
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2001 Aug;56(3-4):326-38
references.pmid: 11548999