Next Article in Journal
Highly Efficient and Sustainable HT@NC/Pd Catalysts for Suzuki Coupling and Their Application in Elacestrant Synthesis
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancement of Enzyme Activity by Alternating Magnetic Field and Near-Infrared Irradiation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Protein Engineering for Industrial Biocatalysis: Principles, Approaches, and Lessons from Engineered PETases
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Cellulosome Systems in the Digestive Tract: Underexplored Enzymatic Machine for Lignocellulose Bioconversion

1
Department of Bioscience and Bioengineering, School of Chemistry and Biological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, 30 Xueyuan Road, Beijing 100083, China
2
CAS Key Laboratory of Biofuels, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Shandong Engineering Research Center of Single Cell Oil, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 189 Songling Road, Qingdao 266101, China
3
Qingdao Engineering Laboratory of Single Cell Oil, Qingdao New Energy Shandong Laboratory, 189 Songling Road, Qingdao 266101, China
4
Shandong Energy Institute, 189 Songling Road, Qingdao 266101, China
5
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2025, 15(4), 387; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15040387
Submission received: 10 March 2025 / Revised: 9 April 2025 / Accepted: 13 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Review Papers in Biocatalysis and Enzyme Engineering)

Abstract

:
Cellulosomes are sophisticated multi-enzyme complexes synthesized and secreted by anaerobic microorganisms, characterized by intricate structural components and highly organized modular assembly mechanisms. These complexes play a pivotal role in the efficient degradation of lignocellulosic biomass, significantly enhancing its bioconversion efficiency, and are thus regarded as invaluable enzymatic molecular machines. Cellulosomes are not only prevalent in anaerobic bacteria from soil and compost environments but are also integral to the digestive systems of herbivorous animals, primates and termites. The cellulosomes produced by digestive tract microbiota exhibit unique properties, providing novel enzymes and protein modules that are instrumental in biomass conversion and synthetic biology, thereby showcasing substantial application potential. Despite their promise, the isolation and cultivation of digestive tract microorganisms that produce cellulosomes present significant challenges. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive genetic and biochemical studies has impeded a thorough understanding of these cellulosomes, leaving them largely underexplored. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the digestive tract cellulosome system, with a particular focus on the structural and functional attributes of cellulosomes in various animal digestive tracts. It also discusses the application prospects of digestive tract cellulosomes, highlighting their potential as a treasure in diverse fields.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With population growth and accelerated industrialization, the progressive depletion of non-renewable resources and deteriorating environmental conditions have emerged as critical global challenges. In this context, renewable resources have garnered significant scientific interest owing to their renewability and environmental friendliness. Among them, lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) is a carbon-neutral feedstock derived from ubiquitous sources including agricultural waste (e.g., rice straw, wheat straw and corn straw) [1,2], forestry wastes [3,4] and cellulose-rich waste streams (e.g., paper) [5]. Global LCB production is estimated at ~200 billion metric tons annually [6], positioning it as a pivotal resource for sustainable biorefineries. Structurally, lignocellulose comprises three primary polymeric constituents: cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin [7]. This recalcitrant matrix can be biocatalytically converted into value-added products such as biofuels and platform chemicals through sequential processing involving pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation [8]. The saccharification process is a key step in biotransformation, which converts insoluble lignocellulosic substrates into soluble fermentable sugars [9,10]. The enzymatic machinery driving saccharification predominantly consists of polysaccharide-degrading hydrolases, including cellulases, hemicellulases and pectinases. Notably, aerobic fungi such as Trichoderma reesei have evolved specialized secretory pathways to produce extracellular enzyme cocktails, enabling efficient lignocellulose deconstruction [11]. A paradigm shift occurred in the 1980s with the discovery of cellulose-binding protein complexes in Clostridium thermocellum, an anaerobic thermophile exhibiting exceptional cellulolytic activity [12,13]. Subsequent characterization revealed these complexes to be multifunctional nanomachines, termed cellulosomes [14,15]. Architecturally, cellulosomes feature a modular scaffoldin subunit containing cohesin domains that orchestrate the assembly of dockerin-bearing catalytic modules [16]. However, the molecular weight and assembly complexity of cellulosomes in different species vary greatly, reflecting evolutionary adaptations to specific substrate niches [17]. This duality of conservation and diversification positions cellulosomes as evolutionarily optimized systems for lignocellulose valorization.
Comparative analyses demonstrate that cellulosome-mediated substrate conversion efficiency significantly surpasses that of free cellulase systems, prompting substantial research interest in its evolutionarily optimized lignocellulose deconstruction mechanisms [18]. To date, the most extensively characterized cellulosome-producing strains—C. thermocellum and Clostridium cellulolyticum—have predominantly been isolated from soil and composting systems [19]. Emerging evidence, however, reveals a broader phylogenetic distribution of cellulosome-producing microorganisms across diverse ecological niches, with notable prevalence in animal digestive ecosystems (Table 1) [20,21]. For example, Ruminococcus flavefaciens and Ruminococcus albus in the digestive tract of ruminants (e.g., cattle, sheep, etc.) were found to be cellulosome-producing bacteria [22], which efficiently degrade lignocellulose, thereby promoting the digestion of feed. Recent studies have shown that the digestive tracts of humans [23,24] and non-human primates (NHPs) [25] also contain a variety of cellulosome-producing bacteria belonging to the genera Ruminococcus. Clostridium termitidis present in the gut of termites degrade lignocellulose into fermentable sugars for further digestion and absorption by the host termites [26]. These collective findings suggest that virtually all plant fiber-consuming animals harbor gut microbiota capable of cellulosome production, which synergistically enhances polysaccharide depolymerization to support host nutrition.
Structural and functional studies of cellulosomes have predominantly focused on their modular architecture and precisely coordinated assembly mechanisms in anaerobic bacteria isolated from environmental niches such as soil and compost systems [16]. However, due to technical challenges in isolating, culturing and genetically manipulating microorganisms from animal digestive tracts, their cellulosomes have yet to be thoroughly investigated, and more cellulosome-producing microorganisms await characterization [21,25]. Intriguingly, the observed lignocellulose degradation efficiency in animal gastrointestinal ecosystems demonstrates marked superiority over conventional soil/compost environments, highlighting the untapped potential of these digestive tract cellulosomes for biotechnological applications [34]. Although a large number of review articles on cellulosomes have been published, none of them focuses on the cellulosome system in the digestive tract. In this paper, the cellulosome system in the digestive tract is reviewed. The structure and application of the cellulosome are first summarized, then the distribution and characteristics of the cellulosome in the digestive tract of different animals are described in detail. Finally, the applications of the cellulosome in the digestive tract are prospected.

2. Cellulosome: Conservation and Diversity

Cellulosomes are assembled through high-affinity, non-covalent interactions between catalytic subunits and scaffoldins. Structurally, the catalytic subunit comprises a catalytic module and a small, non-catalytic module known as dockerin, while the scaffoldin consists of tandem, non-catalytic modules termed cohesins. A diverse array of enzymes, predominantly cellulases and hemicellulases, are assembled onto the scaffoldin via strong non-covalent interactions between the cohesin and dockerin, thereby forming the cellulosome. Moreover, some scaffoldins and enzymes may incorporate auxiliary modules, such as carbohydrate-binding modules (CBMs), which play a crucial role in substrate recognition and binding. Despite this conserved assembly mechanism, cellulosomes exhibit remarkable interspecies variation in molecular mass, architectural complexity, and specificity of cohesin–dockerin interactions, reflecting evolutionary adaptations to distinct ecological niches.

2.1. Fundamental Framework of Cellulosomes

The architectural framework of cellulosomes is defined by the modular assembly of dockerin-containing enzymatic subunits and cohesin-bearing scaffoldin proteins (Figure 1) [16,35]. Central to this assembly is the specific interaction between cohesin and dockerin domains, which can be classified into three distinct types based on sequence homology and structural analyses [16]. In most characterized cellulosome-producing bacteria, type I interactions mediate the binding of dockerin-bearing enzymes to primary scaffoldins containing tandem type I cohesins. Notably, certain primary scaffoldins incorporate a type II dockerin, enabling their hierarchical assembly with secondary scaffoldins harboring type II cohesins, thereby forming poly-cellulosome megacomplexes [16]. In contrast, type III interactions, predominantly observed in Ruminococcus species, demonstrate varying assembly patterns that can be further categorized into several groups [36]. Type II and type III assembly modules significantly diverge from type I in their overall structures and interaction modes, which ensures the specificity between the cohesin and the dockerin interaction types, thereby ensuring the rigor of hierarchical assembly.
The enzymatic repertoire of cellulosomes is predominantly composed of glycoside hydrolases (GHs), exhibiting remarkable functional diversity [37]. Through the spatial organization of complementary enzymes on the scaffoldin, cellulosomes achieve a proximity effect that amplifies synergistic interactions among catalytic subunits [16]. Further functional specialization is achieved through CBMs, which direct cellulosomes to lignocellulosic substrates, and S-layer homology (SLH) domains, which anchor cellulosomes to the cell wall [16]. This spatial arrangement facilitates rapid uptake of degradation products by the host cell, thereby mitigating product inhibition. Collectively, substrate targeting, enzyme–enzyme synergy, enzyme–cell coordination and proximity effects constitute the mechanistic basis for the exceptional catalytic efficiency of cellulosomes [16,38,39]. Additionally, auxiliary modules—including expansins, proteases, protease inhibitors and spore coat protein CotH—have been identified in certain cellulosomal systems, although their physiological roles remain largely unknown [40,41,42,43].

2.2. Species-Specific Diversity of Cellulosomes

The fundamental structure of cellulosomes remains consistent across different species, revealing a conserved basic framework. However, the diversity of cellulosomes is evident in the variations observed in assembly complexity and interaction modes among different species [17]. A striking example is Pseudobacteroides cellulosolvens (formerly Bacteroides cellulosolvens) [44], an anaerobic sludge isolate whose cellulosomes exhibit inverted interaction patterns compared to canonical systems. Specifically, its primary scaffoldin employs type II cohesins for enzyme recruitment, while type I cohesins are localized to the anchoring scaffoldin [45]. This bacterium also harbors an exceptionally complex cellulosomal system, comprising 31 scaffoldins and 212 dockerin-bearing enzymatic subunits [45], representing the most intricate cellulosome characterized to date. Similarly, ruminococcal cellulosomes utilize type III interactions, distinct from both type I and type II systems [28,36]. The species specificity of cohesin–dockerin interactions is remarkably stringent; for instance, type I cohesins from C. thermocellum exclusively recognize their cognate dockerins, preventing cross-species recognition and ensuring species-specific cellulosome assembly [46]. However, exceptions to this specificity rule have been documented for certain cellulosomal components [41,47].
The enzymatic composition of cellulosomes varies substantially across species, directly influencing their substrate degradation capabilities. For instance, cellulosomes from Clostridium clariflavum are enriched in hemicellulolytic enzymes compared to those of C. thermocellum, featuring diverse xylanases from GH11, GH30 and GH67 families [48]. Notably, GH30 xylanases constitute a major enzymatic component in C. clariflavum cellulosomes [49] but are minimally represented in C. thermocellum [50,51]. This divergence translates to distinct xylan degradation strategies: C. clariflavum efficiently converts xylan to xylose monomers, whereas C. thermocellum primarily generates xylo-oligosaccharides [48], and C. clariflavum exhibits higher activity than C. thermocellum in the breakdown of hemicellulose and unpretreated plant material [52]. Besides this comparison, however, the performance of different cellulosomes in lignocellulose bioconversion was seldomly compared experimentally for different species.

3. Applications of Cellulosome System in Lignocellulose Bioconversion and Biotechnology

The exceptional lignocellulose-degrading capacity of cellulosomes positions them as pivotal biocatalysts for LCB valorization. Their modular architecture facilitates heterologous expression and engineering, enabling diverse applications in synthetic biology and biotechnology.

3.1. Biomass Conversion

C. thermocellum, the most extensively studied cellulosome-producing bacterium, is the most efficient microorganism for cellulose degradation in nature, making it an ideal candidate strain for biomass conversion. This bacterium conducts intracellular glucose metabolism via an atypical glycolysis pathway and is capable of producing ethanol from cellulose [53]. As such, it is considered one of the most promising strains for the industrialization of lignocellulose conversion [54,55]. To harness this capability, Lynd et al. proposed consolidated bioprocessing (CBP), a strategy leveraging C. thermocellum for simultaneous lignocellulose degradation and ethanol production [56,57]. The CBP strategy faces a significant challenge in aligning the saccharification process with the ethanol fermentation production process. To address this, researchers have developed a strategy called consolidated bio-saccharification (CBS) that utilizes C. thermocellum and its cellulosomes for efficient lignocellulose saccharification [9,58]. Furthermore, research into hydrogen production from lignocellulose using C. thermocellum represents another important avenue of investigation [59].
Rumen microbiota also offers significant potential for biofuel production and fermented feed development [6]. The volatile fatty acids produced by rumen microbial fermentation serve as key precursors for biofuel synthesis, including alcohols, ketones and hydrocarbons. Co-cultivation of rumen microorganisms with complementary strains can enhance biofuel yields. Moreover, certain rumen bacteria and fungi exhibit robust metabolic activity, making them attractive candidates for fermented feed formulations [60].

3.2. Other Biotechnological Applications

Cellulosomes are widely used in synthetic biology and biotechnology. The concept of designer cellulosomes, pioneered by Bayer et al. [61], revolutionized their biotechnological utility. This approach involves engineering chimeric scaffoldins to assemble tailored multi-enzyme complexes with specific functionalities. For instance, displaying designer cellulosomes on Saccharomyces cerevisiae enables direct cellulose-to-ethanol conversion [62,63,64,65,66]. Beyond biofuels, designer cellulosomes can facilitate novel anabolic pathways to accelerate reaction rates and synthesize biofunctional materials [67,68,69].
Cellulosome components also find applications in diverse biotechnological fields. The cohesin–dockerin interaction enables integration with affinity systems (e.g., protein A, antibodies, lectins) for immunoassays, drug delivery, microarray technology and cell separation [16,70]. Notably, cohesin–dockerin-based biosensors [71] and CBM-fusion proteins for bioreactors [72], plant growth regulators [72] and protein purification [73] exemplify their versatility. The unique structural and functional properties of cellulosomes not only advance lignocellulose bioconversion but also expand their applicability across biotechnology.

4. Cellulosomes in Rumen Microbiota of Herbivores

Herbivores, particularly ruminants, exhibit remarkable lignocellulose degradation efficiency, attributable to the complex microbial ecosystems within their digestive tracts. Ruminants possess a specialized foregut (rumen) that maintains optimal temperature and pH conditions for anaerobic microbial communities (rumen microbiota). These microorganisms produce diverse carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes), enabling the fermentation of plant biomass into volatile fatty acids [74,75]. Furthermore, rumination behavior—periodic regurgitation and re-chewing of feed—enhances substrate accessibility, thereby improving both conversion efficiency and digestibility [75,76]. This synergistic interplay between rumen microbiota and host physiology significantly enhances overall digestive efficiency.
Among rumen microbiota, bacteria are recognized as primary cellulose degraders, with dominant species belonging to the Bacteroidetes, Fibrobacteres and Firmicutes phyla [22]. These taxa employ distinct cellulolytic strategies: Bacteroidetes utilize free cellulases and polysaccharide utilization loci (PULs) to degrade cellulose and pectin [77]; Fibrobacteres, represented by Fibrobacter succinogenes, secrete cellulose-degrading enzymes via membrane vesicles or localize them on the cell surface [78]; and Firmicutes employ both free enzymes and cellulosomes for cellulose hydrolysis. Notably, two key cellulolytic species—R. albus and R. flavefaciens—belonging to Firmicutes produce cellulosomes that play a central role in ruminal cellulose degradation [22]. Additionally, anaerobic fungi capable of cellulosome production have been identified in the rumen, exhibiting structural distinctions from bacterial cellulosomes [33].

4.1. Cellulosomes of Rumen Ruminococcus

Comparative genomic analyses have revealed striking differences in the cellulosome systems of R. albus and R. flavefaciens [28]. R. flavefaciens possesses highly intricate cellulosomes comprising multiple scaffoldins and numerous dockerin-bearing enzymes, whereas R. albus lacks tandem-cohesin scaffoldins and exhibits a significantly reduced repertoire of dockerin-containing proteins.

4.1.1. Cellulosomes of R. flavefaciens

R. flavefaciens cellulosomes represent the most extensively characterized cellulosome system among digestive tract microorganisms. Prior to genome sequencing, numerous cellulosomal components, including scaffoldins and enzymes, were biochemically characterized [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87]. Following the first genome report in 2009 [27], subsequent studies have comprehensively analyzed cellulosomes across various R. flavefaciens strains [28,88,89]. R. flavefaciens encodes over ten scaffoldins and more than 180 dockerin-bearing proteins [28,90], with cohesin–dockerin interactions classified into six distinct groups [88,91], resulting in a highly complex assembly (Figure 2A). Among these, ScaA and ScaB are the largest scaffoldins, containing three and nine cohesins, respectively, in R. flavefaciens FD-1. ScaA features a C-terminal dockerin that specifically binds to the cohesin of ScaB, while ScaB contains an X-dockerin at its C-terminus, enabling specific interaction with the cohesin of ScaE, which harbors a sortase motif for cell wall anchoring [82]. ScaC, an adaptor scaffoldin containing both dockerin and cohesin domains [83], is the most conserved scaffoldin across R. flavefaciens strains and is proposed as a genetic marker for metagenomic analyses [87,92]. Similarly, ScaH contains one dockerin and one cohesin, but its dockerin can bind to another ScaH molecule, suggesting a role as a spacer to reduce steric hindrance during cellulosome assembly [93]. Notably, R. flavefaciens strains 17 and 007c encode a unique protein with seven tandem dockerins, absent in strain FD-1, although its functional significance remains unexplored [28].
Within the six groups of cohesin–dockerin interactions, the structures of the cohesin–dockerin complexes in groups 1, 3, 4 and 5 have been solved (Figure 2B) [36,93,94,95,96,97], revealing the molecular basis of type III interactions and highlighting the diversity of cellulosome assembly in R. flavefaciens. Single-molecule force spectroscopy and steered molecular dynamics simulations of the interaction between ScaE cohesin and CttA X-Doc demonstrated exceptional mechanical strength, withstanding forces of 600–750 pN, making it one of the strongest biomolecular interactions known, comparable to half the strength of a covalent bond [98].
R. flavefaciens encodes over 200 dockerin-bearing proteins, with ~50% containing CAZyme modules, including GHs, polysaccharide lyases and carbohydrate esterases [88]. However, a significant proportion of these proteins contain domains/modules of unknown function [88], underscoring substantial knowledge gaps in ruminococcal cellulosome biology. To date, only a limited number of cellulosomal enzymes have been functionally characterized, including a papain-like cysteine peptidase [43], a GH5 endo-mannanase [99], a trimodular GH16 licheninase [100] and a GH5 endoglucanase [101]. High-throughput CBMome screening of 177 uncharacterized protein modules identified six novel CBM families [102], highlighting the potential of R. flavefaciens cellulosomes as a rich resource for discovering novel enzymes and functional modules.

4.1.2. Cellulosomes of R. albus

Early studies suggested that both R. albus and R. flavefaciens produce cellulosomes [103,104]; however, genomic analyses later revealed that R. albus strains lack scaffoldins necessary for cellulosome assembly, despite encoding dozens of dockerin-bearing proteins [104]. Unlike the diverse dockerin groups found in R. flavefaciens, R. albus dockerins are generally conserved and cannot be classified into distinct groups. Notably, R. albus encodes numerous CAZymes fused with a unique CBM37 module, absent in other species, which mediates enzyme attachment to both the bacterial cell surface and substrates [105,106]. Strains 7 and SY3 of R. albus encode a single-cohesin protein with a C-terminal dockerin, analogous to R. flavefaciens ScaC [28], though insufficient for cellulosome assembly. R. albus also produces multi-functional proteins similar to those in R. flavefaciens, but with a reduced repertoire of degradative enzymes [28]. Mutant analyses of R. albus defective in cellulose degradation identified deficiencies in two processive endocellulases, both containing CBM37 modules [107]. Subsequent transcriptomic studies of R. albus 7 grown on cellobiose and cellulose revealed upregulation of CBM37-containing enzymes on cellulose, rather than dockerin-bearing proteins [108], suggesting that dockerin-containing enzymes in R. albus do not play a central role in cellulose degradation. However, studies of a dockerin-containing endoglucanase EgV in R. albus F-40 demonstrated its localization on the cell surface [109], implying the presence of scaffoldin-like proteins or alternative mechanisms for dockerin-mediated attachment. Further research is needed to determine whether dockerin-bearing proteins form cellulosome-like complexes and to elucidate their functional roles.

4.2. Cellulosomes of Rumen Fungi

Rumen anaerobic fungi play a critical role in lignocellulose fermentation, producing both free enzymes and cellulosomes for substrate degradation. These fungi possess robust rhizoids, enabling their hyphae to penetrate plant cell walls, reducing internal tissue tension and facilitating cellulose degradation by other rumen microorganisms [110]. Most rumen fungi belong to the Neocallimastigomycota phylum and can produce free cellulases (non-cellulosomal), free cellulosomes (non-cell-surface-anchored) and cell-bound cellulosomes [111], potentially conferring a competitive advantage over bacterial enzyme systems.
Structurally, fungal cellulosomes differ from bacterial systems, utilizing non-catalytic dockerin domains (NCDDs) with distinct sequences to mediate assembly via interaction with scaffoldins [112]. Haitjema et al. identified 95 fungal scaffoldins capable of binding NCDDs and nearly 1600 dockerin domain proteins (DDPs) containing NCDDs in the cellulosomes of five anaerobic fungi, including Anaeromyces robustus, Neocallimastix californiae and Piromyces finnis [33]. While fungal scaffoldins likely orchestrate DDP assembly, the structural and biophysical basis of scaffoldin-NCDD interactions remains poorly characterized. The scaffoldin system in fungi is highly conserved, enabling extensive cross-species interactions, in contrast to the species-specific assembly of bacterial cellulosomes [113]. Enzymatically, fungal cellulosomes also differ from bacterial systems, containing GH3, GH6 and GH45 enzymes, which are rare in bacterial cellulosomes. Notably, GH3 enzymes exhibit β-glucosidase activity, enabling fungal cellulosomes to directly convert cellulose into fermentable monosaccharides, unlike Clostridium cellulosomes, which primarily produce low-molecular-weight oligosaccharides and disaccharides [114]. Additionally, fungal cellulosomes incorporate enzymes acquired through horizontal gene transfer from bacterial cellulosomes within the rumen microbiota [33,115,116].

5. Cellulosomes in the Intestinal Tract of Primates

Gut microbiota in primates play a pivotal role in host metabolism and immune regulation. Recent studies have identified cellulosome-producing bacteria in the gastrointestinal tracts of primates, including humans, highlighting their functional significance in digestive physiology, evolutionary adaptation and host–microbe symbiosis [25].

5.1. Cellulosomes in the Human Gut

Moraïs et al. [117] first reported that Ruminococcus champanellensis, a key species in the human gut microbiota, harbors genetic elements for cellulosome production and efficiently degrades microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel). The cellulosome architecture of R. champanellensis resembles that of R. flavefaciens [24,25], comprising 12 scaffoldins (Figure 3). Despite its structural complexity, the 20 cohesins on these scaffoldins exhibit specific recognition and binding to 64 dockerin-bearing proteins, ensuring structural stability in the complex intestinal environment [20]. This specificity is analogous to R. flavefaciens, where type III assembly modules display subtle variations among different members, resulting in diverse interaction patterns. Overall, cohesin–dockerin interactions can be classified into distinct groups based on structural and binding characteristics, providing molecular flexibility for cellulosome function and adaptation to diverse plant fiber structures.
The enzymatic repertoire of R. champanellensis cellulosomes exhibits remarkable diversity and complexity, including cellulases, xylanases, mannanases and other GHs, with up to 10 distinct cellulases [117]. These enzymes display varying modes of action and activity levels on cellulose substrates. For instance, comparative studies of cellulosome activity on carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel) [118,119,120] have revealed unique functional roles in cellulose degradation. Genomic analyses of dockerin-bearing GHs in R. champanellensis identified multiple GH families, including GH5, GH8 and GH9 [117]. Despite their diversity, these enzymes share conserved catalytic domains in key amino acid sequences and three-dimensional structures, indicating a common catalytic mechanism. This structural adaptability enables cellulosomes to synergistically degrade complex polysaccharides in plant cell walls, enhancing the host’s energy harvest from diverse dietary fibers and improving adaptability to varying cellulose sources.
Recently, Moraïs et al. [25] expanded our understanding of human gut cellulose-degrading bacteria by identifying novel species, including Candidatus Ruminococcus primaciens, Ruminococcus hominiciens and Ruminococcus ruminiciens. These species are more prevalent in non-industrialized populations, correlating with dietary fiber intake and lifestyle factors. They acquire diet-adapted genes through horizontal gene transfer, such as the GH98 gene in R. hominiciens and the GH19 gene in R. primaciens, enabling them to occupy specific niches in fiber degradation and providing insights for modulating gut microbiota to improve host health.
Another notable species, Ruminococcus bromii, a dominant member of the human gut microbiota, plays a key role in starch degradation and energy release. Genomic analyses revealed four dockerin-bearing amylases and four cohesin-containing proteins, suggesting the existence of an amylosome, a cellulosome-like complex for starch hydrolysis [121]. This discovery extends the cellulosome paradigm, although the assembly and functional mechanisms of the amylosome remain to be fully elucidated.
It should be noted that while cellulosome-producing bacteria like R. champanellensis in the human gut can effectively hydrolyze cellulose to glucose [20], their abundance varies significantly depending on dietary habits and they are not consistently prevalent in the human digestive system [25]. Their roles in human food digestion and human healthy remain poorly understood and require further investigation.

5.2. Cellulosomes in the Gut of NHPs

Mammals lack endogenous GHs, polysaccharide lyases and carbohydrate esterases necessary for hydrolyzing β-1,4 glycosidic bonds in complex plant polysaccharides. Instead, their gastrointestinal microbiota degrades and ferment these structural polysaccharides, producing energy-rich short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). For example, NHPs, which primarily consume plant-based diets [122], derive a significant portion of their daily energy from SCFAs [123]. With the rapid expansion of NHP gut microbiome datasets, particularly metagenomic and metatranscriptomic data, cellulosome-producing bacteria have been identified in NHP gastrointestinal tracts. For instance, metagenomic analyses of snub-nosed monkey Rhinopithecus bieti revealed a substantial abundance of lignocellulose-degrading bacteria, including key cellulosome producers such as C. thermocellum, C. cellulolyticum and R. flavefaciens [124]. Newman et al. demonstrated that dietary habits significantly influence the abundance of R. champanellensis in the gut microbiota of macaque Macaca fascicularis [125]. Houtkamp et al. identified fungal cellulosome-associated sequences, including GH48 enzymes, in the gut microbiome of zoo-housed gorillas [126]. Additionally, Li et al. detected genes encoding cohesin and dockerin modules of Ruminococcus in the metagenome of wild gibbons [127].
Recent work by Moraïs et al. [25] systematically investigated cellulosome-producing bacteria in human and NHP gut metagenomes, revealing that R. champanellensis and three novel species—R. primaciens, R. hominiciens and R. ruminiciens—are widely distributed in NHP guts and correlate with dietary patterns. Although these bacteria are present in both humans and NHPs, their evolutionary distribution differs: R. primaciens is associated with NHPs and ancient humans, while R. hominiciens is primarily linked to humans and apes. These species adapt to host ecosystems by acquiring genes from co-resident gut microbes, such as those for degrading specific plant polysaccharides. Phylogenetic analyses suggest that R. hominiciens may have originated from ruminant guts, whereas R. primaciens is closely related to ancestral human strains. The spread and adaptation of these bacteria across primates and ruminants reflect the dynamic exchange of microbial communities between distinct ecosystems.

6. Cellulosomes in Termite Guts

Termites, belonging to the Arthropoda, Insecta and Isoptera taxa, are hemimetabolous insects that play a critical role in carbon and nitrogen cycling due to their lignocellulose-degrading capabilities [128]. Their digestive system, comprising the foregut, midgut and highly specialized hindgut, harbors a diverse microbial community that facilitates the breakdown of complex polymers such as cellulose and lignin into digestible compounds, including SCFAs and monosaccharides [129,130,131]. However, cellulosomes were not identified in the termite gut microbiome until 2013, when genomic analysis of C. termitidis CT1112 revealed their presence [32,132].
C. termitidis CT1112, first isolated from the gut of the wood-feeding termite, Nasutitermes lujae [133], was originally classified within Clostridium cluster III [134]. Subsequent phylogenetic analyses led to the reclassification of cluster III members into four novel genera, with C. termitidis reassigned to Ruminiclostridium [135]. Further studies suggested that C. termitidis and Clostridium cellobioparum should be classified as subspecies of the same species, resulting in the current taxonomic designation of Ruminiclostridium cellobioparum subsp. termitidis [135]. For consistency with most published literature, this review retains the name Clostridium termitidis.
C. termitidis CT1112 can utilize cellulose, xylan, cellobiose and xylose as carbon sources, producing acetic acid, ethanol and lactic acid through mixed-acid fermentation [136]. Genomic analysis [32] identified 281 CAZymes, including 198 GHs distributed across 50 families. The genome also encodes twenty-two dockerin-bearing GHs, five cohesin-containing scaffoldins, and a ~20 kb gene cluster containing thirteen cellulosomal genes, resembling the simple cellulosome systems of well-characterized strains such as C. cellulolyticum [26]. This cluster includes scaffoldin genes followed by dockerin-bearing enzyme genes, suggesting a functional cellulosome. Additionally, C. termitidis produces non-cellulosomal cellulases, including exoglucanases (GH48, GH9), endoglucanases (GH5, GH8, GH9), xylanases (GH8, GH10, GH11, GH30) and mannanases (GH26), which synergize with the cellulosome to degrade cellulose into fermentable sugars [136]. Proteomic studies confirmed the active expression of cellulosomal components in C. termitidis CT1112, with all encoded dockerin- and cohesin-containing proteins detected in the proteome [136]. Transcriptomic and proteomic analyses further revealed substrate-dependent regulation of cellulosomal genes [137], mirroring the expression patterns observed in other cellulosome-producing bacteria [138,139].
Over the past two decades, significant advances have been made in understanding symbiotic digestion in termite guts [140]. Notably, termite gut microbiota exhibit diet-dependent community structures [141]. A comparative study of gut prokaryotic microbiomes from 11 higher termite genera, categorized into plant fiber- and soil-feeding groups, found higher cohesin/dockerin transcript levels in soil-feeding termites, suggesting more active cellulosome production in these species [142].
While the host’s role in mechanical grinding and enzymatic processing of digestive substrates is well-recognized, the mechanisms underlying lignocellulose degradation by cellulosomes remain poorly understood [132,143]. To date, few microorganisms have been isolated and characterized from termite guts. For C. termitidis CT1112, all cellulosome-related findings are based on omics studies, with no biophysical or biochemical investigations into its assembly or enzymatic properties. Comprehensive studies of termite gut cellulosomes are essential, as they will not only deepen our understanding of lignocellulose degradation in termite digestive systems but also unlock novel enzyme systems and protein components for advancing biomass conversion technologies.

7. Research and Application Prospect of Digestive Tract Cellulosomes

The application potential of digestive tract cellulosomes remains largely untapped, primarily due to limited knowledge about their unique properties and significant differences compared to cellulosomes from soil and compost environments. Further research is essential to fully elucidate their functional mechanisms and harness their biotechnological potential (Figure 4).
Key research priorities include:
  • Enzymatic characterization of cellulosomal components, as most enzymes in digestive tract cellulosomes remain uncharacterized, and their roles in lignocellulose degradation have not been experimentally validated. Discovering novel enzymes and functional modules will enhance our understanding of these systems and provide new tools for lignocellulose biorefineries.
  • Elucidating the structural organization and interaction mechanisms of cellulosomal components to understand how their arrangement contributes to functionality across different digestive tract environments.
  • Exploring the regulation of cellulosome production in digestive tract microorganisms, as novel regulatory mechanisms are likely to be uncovered.
  • Investigating the interactions between cellulosome-producing microorganisms and other gut microbes, which may reveal their roles in host health and functionality.
  • Clarifying the contributions of cellulosome-producing microorganisms to greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., methane) and feed efficiency in livestock, which could inform strategies to reduce emissions and enhance productivity in the livestock industry.
Based on existing research, digestive tract cellulosomes are expected to have broad applications in multiple fields:
  • Lignocellulose Biorefineries: The high efficiency of cellulosomes has already been leveraged for biofuel production and lignocellulose bio-saccharification [9,57]. Novel cellulosomal components from digestive tracts may enhance the activity and versatility of cellulosomes in biorefinery applications.
  • Synthetic Biology and Biotechnology: The unique assembly of digestive tract cellulosomes offers novel modules for synthetic metabolic pathways, surface display systems, enzyme immobilization and biosensor development [61,67,68,69].
  • Animal Nutrition: Cellulosomes have potential applications in improving feed utilization through cellulosome-producing bacterial additives or pre-treatment of lignocellulosic feeds [21,75].
  • Environmental Sustainability: Digestive tract cellulosomes may mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from livestock [21] and enhance the composting of lignocellulosic agricultural waste [144]. Additionally, cellulosomal modules could be engineered to assemble plastic-degrading enzymes, improving the biotreatment of plastic waste and reducing pollution [145,146].

8. Conclusions

Cellulosomes are multi-enzyme complexes produced by microorganisms capable of cellulose degradation. They share a conserved structural framework, where dockerin-bearing catalytic subunits are assembled onto cohesin-containing scaffoldins through specific cohesin–dockerin interactions. However, cellulosomes exhibit significant interspecies variation in molecular weight, assembly patterns and catalytic composition, resulting in diverse structural architectures, substrate specificities and degradation efficiencies. This interplay of conservation and diversity reflects the evolutionary uniqueness and complexity of cellulosomes. Notably, cellulosomes from animal digestive tracts differ markedly from well-characterized systems such as those of C. thermocellum and C. cellulolyticum, exhibiting unique structural and functional features that warrant further investigation.
In ruminants, Ruminococcus species are the primary cellulose-degrading bacteria, utilizing cellulosomes to break down cellulose and enhance feed absorption. Similarly, cellulosome-producing bacteria have been identified in the digestive tracts of humans, NHPs, termites and other animals. These cellulosomes are highly adapted to their host environments and specific substrates, facilitating nutrient absorption and digestive efficiency. However, studies on digestive tract cellulosomes are limited due to the challenges of culturing these fastidious microorganisms and the lack of genetic tools. Key knowledge gaps include the assembly mechanisms, functional roles of cellulosomal components and synergistic interactions between cellulosomal and free enzymes. Future research must address these technical challenges to bridge the significant gaps in our understanding of digestive tract cellulosomes.
Cellulosomes have broad applications in biomass conversion, synthetic biology and biotechnology. Digestive tract cellulosomes, in particular, offer unique advantages: (1) They have unique characteristics, providing novel enzymes and functional modules for biomass conversion and synthetic biology. (2) They enhance cellulose degradation and nutrient absorption in hosts, potentially improving host health and physiological functions. (3) They may mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and improve feed efficiency in livestock. The underexplored potential of digestive tract cellulosomes underscores the need for in-depth studies to unlock their full biotechnological and ecological value. These enzymatic molecular machines are worthy of focused research to harness their unique properties for scientific and industrial applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.F. and J.X.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Q., M.Z. and Y.F.; writing—review and editing, C.C., Y.F. and J.X.; visualization, J.Q. and Y.F.; supervision, Y.F. and J.X.; funding acquisition, C.C., Y.F. and J.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFC3402300 to Y.F.); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32470024 to Y.F., 32471257 to C.C.), the QIBEBT International Cooperation Project (QIBEBT ICP202304 to Y.F.) and the Training Program for Young Teaching Backbone Talents, USTB (2302020JXGGRC-005 to J.X.).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LCBlignocellulosic biomass
CBMcarbohydrate-binding module
GHglycoside hydrolase
SLHS-layer homology
CBPconsolidated bioprocessing
CBSconsolidated bio-saccharification
CAZymescarbohydrate-active enzymes
PULpolysaccharide utilization loci
NCDDnon-catalytic dockerin domain
DDPdockerin domain protein
CMCcarboxymethyl cellulose
SCFAshort-chain fatty acids
NHPnon-human primate

References

  1. Mohanty, B.; Abdullahi, I.I. Bioethanol production from lignocellulosic waste—A review. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia 2016, 13, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mujtaba, M.; Fraceto, L.F.; Fazeli, M.; Mukherjee, S.; Savassa, S.M.; de Medeiros, G.A.; Pereira, A.D.S.; Mancini, S.D.; Lipponen, J.; Vilaplana, F. Lignocellulosic biomass from agricultural waste to the circular economy: A review with focus on biofuels, biocomposites and bioplastics. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 402, 136815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xie, H.; Zhang, D.; Mao, G.; Wang, F.; Song, A. Availability of lignocellulose from forestry waste for use as a biofuel in China. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cao, L.; Zhang, C.; Chen, H.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Luo, G.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. Hydrothermal liquefaction of agricultural and forestry wastes: State-of-the-art review and future prospects. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 1184–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kumar, V.; Pathak, P.; Bhardwaj, N.K. Waste paper: An underutilized but promising source for nanocellulose mining. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 281–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nguyen, L.N.; Nguyen, A.Q.; Johir, M.A.; Guo, W.S.; Ngo, H.H.; Chaves, A.V.; Nghiem, L.D. Application of rumen and anaerobic sludge microbes for bio harvesting from lignocellulosic biomass. Chemosphere 2019, 228, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ilic, N.; Milic, M.; Beluhan, S.; Dimitrijevic-Brankovic, S. Cellulases: From lignocellulosic biomass to improved production. Energies 2023, 16, 3598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rastogi, M.; Shrivastava, S. Recent advances in second generation bioethanol production: An insight to pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, Y.-J.; Li, B.; Feng, Y.; Cui, Q. Consolidated bio-saccharification: Leading lignocellulose bioconversion into the real world. Biotechnol. Adv. 2020, 40, 107535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cui, Q.; Feng, Y.; Xuan, J. Composition of lignocellulose hydrolysate in different biorefinery strategies: Nutrients and inhibitors. Molecules 2024, 29, 2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bischof, R.H.; Ramoni, J.; Seiboth, B. Cellulases and beyond: The first 70 years of the enzyme producer Trichoderma reesei. Microb. Cell Factories 2016, 15, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bayer, E.A.; Kenig, R.; Lamed, R. Adherence of Clostridium thermocellum to cellulose. J. Bacteriol. 1983, 156, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lamed, R.; Setter, E.; Bayer, E.A. Characterization of a cellulose-binding, cellulase-containing complex in Clostridium thermocellum. J. Bacteriol. 1983, 156, 828–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bayer, E.A.; Setter, E.; Lamed, R. Organization and distribution of the cellulosome in Clostridium thermocellum. J. Bacteriol. 1985, 163, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lamed, R.; Setter, E.; Kenig, R.; Bayer, E.A. The cellulosome: A discrete cell surface organelle of Clostridium thermocellum which exhibits separate antigenic, cellulose-binding and various cellulolytic activities. Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp. 1983, 13, 163–181. [Google Scholar]
  16. Artzi, L.; Bayer, E.A.; Moraïs, S. Cellulosomes: Bacterial nanomachines for dismantling plant polysaccharides. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R.; White, B.A.; Flint, H.J. From cellulosomes to cellulosomics. Chem. Rec. 2008, 8, 364–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alves, V.D.; Fontes, C.; Bule, P. Cellulosomes: Highly efficient cellulolytic complexes. Subcell. Biochem. 2021, 96, 323–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Desvaux, M. Clostridium cellulolyticum: Model organism of mesophilic cellulolytic clostridia. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 29, 741–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ben David, Y.; Dassa, B.; Borovok, I.; Lamed, R.; Koropatkin, N.M.; Martens, E.C.; White, B.A.; Bernalier-Donadille, A.; Duncan, S.H.; Flint, H.J.; et al. Ruminococcal cellulosome systems from rumen to human. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 17, 3407–3426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Feng, Y.; Yeoman, C.J. When cellulosomes meet humans. Green Carbon 2024, 2, 337–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, Y.J.; Chang, X.; Xiang, H.; Fang, Y.; Hao, L.Z.; Gu, Y.; Han, X.Y.; Zhao, B.; Zhao, Z.J.; Zhao, C.Z.; et al. Exploring biomimetic potential of ruminant digestion strategies for lignocellulosic biomass utilization: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 188, 113887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chassard, C.; Delmas, E.; Robert, C.; Bernalier-Donadille, A. The cellulose-degrading microbial community of the human gut varies according to the presence or absence of methanogens. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 74, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chassard, C.; Delmas, E.; Robert, C.; Lawson, P.A.; Bernalier-Donadille, A. Ruminococcus champanellensis sp. nov., a cellulose-degrading bacterium from human gut microbiota. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2012, 62, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moraïs, S.; Winkler, S.; Zorea, A.; Levin, L.; Nagies, F.S.P.; Kapust, N.; Lamed, E.; Artan-Furman, A.; Bolam, D.N.; Yadav, M.P.; et al. Cryptic diversity of cellulose-degrading gut bacteria in industrialized humans. Science 2024, 383, eadj9223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Munir, R.I.; Schellenberg, J.; Henrissat, B.; Verbeke, T.J.; Sparling, R.; Levin, D.B. Comparative analysis of carbohydrate active enzymes in Clostridium termitidis CT1112 reveals complex carbohydrate degradation ability. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e104260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miller, M.E.B.; Antonopoulos, D.A.; Rincon, M.T.; Band, M.; Bari, A.; Akraiko, T.; Hernandez, A.; Thimmapuram, J.; Henrissat, B.; Coutinho, P.M.; et al. Diversity and strain specificity of plant cell wall degrading enzymes revealed by the draft genome of Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dassa, B.; Borovok, I.; Ruimy-Israeli, V.; Lamed, R.; Flint, H.J.; Duncan, S.H.; Henrissat, B.; Coutinho, P.; Morrison, M.; Mosoni, P.; et al. Rumen cellulosomics: Divergent fiber-degrading strategies revealed by comparative genome-wide analysis of six ruminococcal strains. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Miller, M.E.B.; Yeoman, C.J.; Chia, N.; Tringe, S.G.; Angly, F.E.; Edwards, R.A.; Flint, H.J.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A.; White, B.A. Phage–bacteria relationships and CRISPR elements revealed by a metagenomic survey of the rumen microbiome. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vodovnik, M.; Duncan, S.H.; Reid, M.D.; Cantlay, L.; Turner, K.; Parkhill, J.; Lamed, R.; Yeoman, C.J.; Miller, M.E.B.; White, B.A.; et al. Expression of cellulosome components and type IV pili within the extracellular proteome of Ruminococcus flavefaciens 007. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Suen, G.; Stevenson, D.M.; Bruce, D.C.; Chertkov, O.; Copeland, A.; Cheng, J.-F.; Detter, C.; Detter, J.C.; Goodwin, L.A.; Han, C.S.; et al. Complete genome of the cellulolytic ruminal bacterium Ruminococcus albus 7. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 5574–5575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lal, S.; Ramachandran, U.; Zhang, X.; Munir, R.; Sparling, R.; Levin, D.B. Draft genome sequence of the cellulolytic, mesophilic, anaerobic bacterium Clostridium termitidis strain CT1112 (DSM 5398). Genome Announc. 2013, 1, e00281-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Haitjema, C.H.; Gilmore, S.P.; Henske, J.K.; Solomon, K.V.; de Groot, R.; Kuo, A.; Mondo, S.J.; Salamov, A.A.; LaButti, K.; Zhao, Z.Y.; et al. A parts list for fungal cellulosomes revealed by comparative genomics. Nat. Microbiol. 2017, 2, 17087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Liang, J.S.; Nabi, M.; Zhang, P.Y.; Zhang, G.M.; Cai, Y.J.; Wang, Q.Y.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Ding, Y.R. Promising biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to renewable energy with rumen microorganisms: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Smith, S.P.; Bayer, E.A. Insights into cellulosome assembly and dynamics: From dissection to reconstruction of the supramolecular enzyme complex. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2013, 23, 686–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bule, P.; Pires, V.M.R.; Alves, V.D.; Carvalho, A.L.; Prates, J.; Ferreira, L.M.A.; Smith, S.P.; Gilbert, H.J.; Noach, I.; Bayer, E.A.; et al. Higher order scaffoldin assembly in Ruminococcus flavefaciens cellulosome is coordinated by a discrete cohesin-dockerin interaction. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Doi, R.H.; Kosugi, A. Cellulosomes: Plant-cell-wall-degrading enzyme complexes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hong, W.; Zhang, J.; Feng, Y.; Mohr, G.; Lambowitz, A.M.; Cui, G.Z.; Liu, Y.J.; Cui, Q. The contribution of cellulosomal scaffoldins to cellulose hydrolysis by Clostridium thermocellum analyzed by using thermotargetrons. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2014, 7, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, Q.; Resch, M.G.; Podkaminer, K.; Yang, S.H.; Baker, J.O.; Donohoe, B.S.; Wilson, C.; Klingeman, D.M.; Olson, D.G.; Decker, S.R.; et al. Dramatic performance of Clostridium thermocellum explained by its wide range of cellulase modalities. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1501254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, C.; Cui, Z.; Song, X.; Liu, Y.-J.; Cui, Q.; Feng, Y. Integration of bacterial expansin-like proteins into cellulosome promotes the cellulose degradation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 2203–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, C.; Yang, H.W.; Dong, S.; You, C.; Moraïs, S.; Bayer, E.A.; Liu, Y.J.; Xuan, J.S.; Cui, Q.; Mizrahi, I.; et al. A cellulosomal double-dockerin module from Clostridium thermocellum shows distinct structural and cohesin-binding features. Protein Sci. 2024, 33, e4937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Meguro, H.; Morisaka, H.; Kuroda, K.; Miyake, H.; Tamaru, Y.; Ueda, M. Putative role of cellulosomal protease inhibitors in Clostridium cellulovorans based on gene expression and measurement of activities. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 5527–5530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Levy-Assaraf, M.; Voronov-Goldman, M.; Rozman Grinberg, I.; Weiserman, G.; Shimon, L.J.W.; Jindou, S.; Borovok, I.; White, B.A.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R.; et al. Crystal structure of an uncommon cellulosome-related protein module from Ruminococcus flavefaciens that resembles papain-Like cysteine peptidases. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Murray, W.D.; Sowden, L.C.; Colvin, J.R. Bacteroides cellulosolvens sp. nov., a cellulolytic species from sewage sludge. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1984, 34, 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhivin, O.; Dassa, B.; Moraïs, S.; Utturkar, S.M.; Brown, S.D.; Henrissat, B.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A. Unique organization and unprecedented diversity of the Bacteroides (Pseudobacteroides) cellulosolvens cellulosome system. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pages, S.; Belaich, A.; Belaich, J.P.; Morag, E.; Lamed, R.; Shoham, Y.; Bayer, E.A. Species-specificity of the cohesin-dockerin interaction between Clostridium thermocellum and Clostridium cellulolyticum: Prediction of specificity determinants of the dockerin domain. Proteins 1997, 29, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haimovitz, R.; Barak, Y.; Morag, E.; Voronov-Goldman, M.; Shoham, Y.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A. Cohesin-dockerin microarray: Diverse specificities between two complementary families of interacting protein modules. Proteomics 2008, 8, 968–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Izquierdo, J.A.; Goodwin, L.; Davenport, K.W.; Teshima, H.; Bruce, D.; Detter, C.; Tapia, R.; Han, S.S.; Land, M.; Hauser, L.; et al. Complete genome sequence of Clostridium clariflavum DSM 19732. Stand. Genom. Sci. 2012, 6, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Artzi, L.; Morag, E.; Barak, Y.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A. Clostridium clariflavum: Key cellulosome players are revealed by proteomic analysis. mBio 2015, 6, e00411-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gold, N.D.; Martin, V.J.J. Global view of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulosome revealed by quantitative proteomic analysis. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 6787–6795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Raman, B.; Pan, C.; Hurst, G.B.; Rodriguez, M.; McKeown, C.K.; Lankford, P.K.; Samatova, N.F.; Mielenz, J.R. Impact of pretreated switchgrass and biomass carbohydrates on Clostridium thermocellum ATCC 27405 cellulosome composition: A quantitative proteomic analysis. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Izquierdo, J.A.; Pattathil, S.; Guseva, A.; Hahn, M.G.; Lynd, L.R. Comparative analysis of the ability of Clostridium clariflavum strains and Clostridium thermocellum to utilize hemicellulose and unpretreated plant material. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2014, 7, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Olson, D.G.; Hörl, M.; Fuhrer, T.; Cui, J.X.; Zhou, J.L.; Maloney, M.I.; Amador-Noguez, D.; Tian, L.; Sauer, U.; Lynd, L.R. Glycolysis without pyruvate kinase in Clostridium thermocellum. Metab. Eng. 2017, 39, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Xu, H.-J.; Liu, W.-H.; Fan, Z.-Y.; Liu, Y.-Y.; Liang, C.-Y.; Xu, J.-L. Research progress on the conversion of lignocellulose to ethanol by Clostridium thermocellum. Adv. New Renew. Energy 2020, 8, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mazzoli, R.; Olson, D.G. Chapter Three—Clostridium thermocellum: A microbial platform for high-value chemical production from lignocellulose. In Advances in Applied Microbiology; Gadd, G.M., Sariaslani, S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 113, pp. 111–161. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lynd, L.R.; Elamder, R.T.; Wyman, C.E. Likely features and costs of mature biomass ethanol technology. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1996, 57, 741–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lynd, L.R.; Liang, X.Y.; Biddy, M.J.; Allee, A.; Cai, H.; Foust, T.; Himmel, M.E.; Laser, M.S.; Wang, M.; Wyman, C.E. Cellulosic ethanol: Status and innovation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Qi, K.; Chen, C.; Yan, F.; Feng, Y.; Bayer, E.A.; Kosugi, A.; Cui, Q.; Liu, Y.-J. Coordinated β-glucosidase activity with the cellulosome is effective for enhanced lignocellulose saccharification. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tian, Q.-Q.; Liang, L.; Zhu, M.-J. Enhanced biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse by Clostridium thermocellum supplemented with CaCO3. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 197, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ban, Y.J.; Guan, L.L. Implication and challenges of direct-fed microbial supplementation to improve ruminant production and health. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 12, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bayer, E.A.; Morag, E.; Lamed, R. The cellulosome—A treasure-trove for biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 1994, 12, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lilly, M.; Fierobe, H.P.; van Zyl, W.H.; Volschenk, H. Heterologous expression of a Clostridium minicellulosome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Yeast Res. 2009, 9, 1236–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Tsai, S.L.; Oh, J.; Singh, S.; Chen, R.Z.; Chen, W. Functional assembly of minicellulosomes on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell surface for cellulose hydrolysis and ethanol production. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 6087–6093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fan, L.H.; Zhang, Z.J.; Yu, X.Y.; Xue, Y.X.; Tan, T.W. Self-surface assembly of cellulosomes with two miniscaffoldins on Saccharomyces cerevisiae for cellulosic ethanol production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 13260–13265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tsai, S.L.; DaSilva, N.A.; Chen, W. Functional display of complex cellulosomes on the yeast surface via adaptive assembly. ACS Synth. Biol. 2013, 2, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, S.; Baek, S.H.; Lee, K.; Hahn, J.S. Cellulosic ethanol production using a yeast consortium displaying a minicellulosome and β-glucosidase. Microb. Cell Factories 2013, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gunnoo, M.; Cazade, P.-A.; Galera-Prat, A.; Nash, M.A.; Czjzek, M.; Cieplak, M.; Alvarez, B.; Aguilar, M.; Karpol, A.; Gaub, H.; et al. Nanoscale engineering of designer cellulosomes. Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 5619–5647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sun, Q.; Tsai, S.-L.; Chen, W. Chapter Fourteen—Artificial scaffolds for enhanced biocatalysis. In Methods in Enzymology; Schmidt-Dannert, C., Quin, M.B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 617, pp. 363–383. [Google Scholar]
  69. Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Han, Y.; Xia, J. Synthetic multienzyme assemblies for natural product biosynthesis. ChemBioChem 2023, 24, e202200518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fierer, J.O.; Tovar-Herrera, O.E.; Weinstein, J.Y.; Kahn, A.; Moraïs, S.; Mizrahi, I.; Bayer, E.A. Affinity-induced covalent protein-protein ligation via the SpyCatcher-SpyTag interaction. Green Carbon 2023, 1, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hyeon, J.E.; Kang, D.H.; Han, S.O. Signal amplification by a self-assembled biosensor system designed on the principle of dockerin-cohesin interactions in a cellulosome complex. Analyst 2014, 139, 4790–4793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shpigel, E.; Goldlust, A.; Efroni, G.; Avraham, A.; Eshel, A.; Dekel, M.; Shoseyov, O. Immobilization of recombinant heparinase I fused to cellulose-binding domain. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1999, 65, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hyeon, J.E.; Kang, D.H.; Kim, Y.I.; Jeon, S.D.; You, S.K.; Kim, K.Y.; Kim, S.W.; Han, S.O. Production of functional agarolytic nano-complex for the synergistic hydrolysis of marine biomass and its potential application in carbohydrate-binding module-utilizing one-step purification. Process Biochem. 2012, 47, 877–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Puniya, A.K.; Singh, R.; Kamra, D.N. (Eds.) Rumen Microbiology: From Evolution to Revolution; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 1–379. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mizrahi, I.; Wallace, R.J.; Moraïs, S. The rumen microbiome: Balancing food security and environmental impacts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ozbayram, E.G.; Kleinsteuber, S.; Nikolausz, M. Biotechnological utilization of animal gut microbiota for valorization of lignocellulosic biomass. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lapébie, P.; Lombard, V.; Drula, E.; Terrapon, N.; Henrissat, B. Bacteroidetes use thousands of enzyme combinations to break down glycans. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gharechahi, J.; Vahidi, M.F.; Sharifi, G.; Ariaeenejad, S.; Ding, X.Z.; Han, J.L.; Salekdeh, G.H. Lignocellulose degradation by rumen bacterial communities: New insights from metagenome analyses. Environ. Res. 2023, 229, 115925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aurilia, V.; Martin, J.C.; McCrae, S.I.; Scott, K.P.; Rincon, M.T.; Flint, H.J. Three multidomain esterases from the cellulolytic rumen anaerobe Ruminococcus flavefaciens 17 that carry divergent dockerin sequences. Microbiology 2000, 146, 1391–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rincón, M.T.; McCrae, S.I.; Kirby, J.; Scott, K.P.; Flint, H.J. EndB, a multidomain family 44 cellulase from Ruminococcus flavefaciens 17, binds to cellulose via a novel cellulose-binding module and to another R. flavefaciens protein via a dockerin domain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 4426–4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ding, S.-Y.; Rincon, M.T.; Lamed, R.; Martin, J.C.; McCrae, S.I.; Aurilia, V.; Shoham, Y.; Bayer, E.A.; Flint, H.J. Cellulosomal scaffoldin-like proteins from Ruminococcus flavefaciens. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 1945–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rincon, M.T.; Ding, S.Y.; McCrae, S.I.; Martin, J.C.; Aurilia, V.; Lamed, R.; Shoham, Y.; Bayer, E.A.; Flint, H.J. Novel organization and divergent dockerin specificities in the cellulosome system of Ruminococcus flavefaciens. J. Bacteriol. 2003, 185, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rincón, M.T.; Martin, J.C.; Aurilia, V.; McCrae, S.I.; Rucklidge, G.J.; Reid, M.D.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R.; Flint, H.J. ScaC, an adaptor protein carrying a novel cohesin that expands the dockerin-binding repertoire of the Ruminococcus flavefaciens 17 cellulosome. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 2576–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rincon, M.T.; Čepeljnik, T.; Martin, J.C.; Lamed, R.; Barak, Y.; Bayer, E.A.; Flint, H.J. Unconventional mode of attachment of the Ruminococcus flavefaciens cellulosome to the cell surface. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 7569–7578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Jindou, S.; Borovok, I.; Rincon, M.T.; Flint, H.J.; Antonopoulos, D.A.; Berg, M.E.; White, B.A.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R. Conservation and divergence in cellulosome architecture between two strains of Ruminococcus flavefaciens. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 7971–7976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Rincon, M.T.; Cepeljnik, T.; Martin, J.C.; Barak, Y.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A.; Flint, H.J. A novel cell surface-anchored cellulose-binding protein encoded by the sca gene cluster of Ruminococcus flavefaciens. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 4774–4783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jindou, S.; Brulc, J.M.; Levy-Assaraf, M.; Rincon, M.T.; Flint, H.J.; Berg, M.E.; Wilson, M.K.; White, B.A.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R.; et al. Cellulosome gene cluster analysis for gauging the diversity of the ruminal cellulolytic bacterium Ruminococcus flavefaciens. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008, 285, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rincon, M.T.; Dassa, B.; Flint, H.J.; Travis, A.J.; Jindou, S.; Borovok, I.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A.; Henrissat, B.; Coutinho, P.M.; et al. Abundance and diversity of dockerin-containing proteins in the fiber-degrading rumen bacterium, Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Brulc, J.M.; Yeoman, C.J.; Wilson, M.K.; Berg Miller, M.E.; Jeraldo, P.; Jindou, S.; Goldenfeld, N.; Flint, H.J.; Lamed, R.; Borovok, I.; et al. Cellulosomics, a gene-centric approach to investigating the intraspecific diversity and adaptation of Ruminococcus flavefaciens within the rumen. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Weimer, P.J. Degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose by ruminal microorganisms. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Israeli-Ruimy, V.; Bule, P.; Jindou, S.; Dassa, B.; Moraïs, S.; Borovok, I.; Barak, Y.; Slutzki, M.; Hamberg, Y.; Cardoso, V.; et al. Complexity of the Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 cellulosome reflects an expansion of family-related protein-protein interactions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 42355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Grinberg, I.R.; Yin, G.; Borovok, I.; Miller, M.E.B.; Yeoman, C.J.; Dassa, B.; Yu, Z.; Mizrahi, I.; Flint, H.J.; Bayer, E.A.; et al. Functional phylotyping approach for assessing intraspecific diversity of Ruminococcus albus within the rumen microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2015, 362, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Duarte, M.; Alves, V.D.; Correia, M.; Caseiro, C.; Ferreira, L.M.A.; Romão, M.J.; Carvalho, A.L.; Najmudin, S.; Bayer, E.A.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; et al. Structure-function studies can improve binding affinity of cohesin-dockerin interactions for multi-protein assemblies. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 224, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Salama-Alber, O.; Jobby, M.K.; Chitayat, S.; Smith, S.P.; White, B.A.; Shimon, L.J.W.; Lamed, R.; Frolow, F.; Bayer, E.A. Atypical cohesin-dockerin complex responsible for cell surface attachment of cellulosomal components: Binging fidelity, promiscuity, and structural buttresses. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 16827–16838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Voronov-Goldman, M.; Yaniv, O.; Gul, O.; Yoffe, H.; Salama-Alber, O.; Slutzki, M.; Levy-Assaraf, M.; Jindou, S.; Shimon, L.J.W.; Borovok, I.; et al. Standalone cohesin as a molecular shuttle in cellulosome assembly. FEBS Lett. 2015, 589, 1569–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Bule, P.; Alves, V.D.; Leitão, A.; Ferreira, L.M.A.; Bayer, E.A.; Smith, S.P.; Gilbert, H.J.; Najmudin, S.; Fontes, C.M.G.A. Single binding mode integration of hemicellulose-degrading enzymes via adaptor scaffoldins in Ruminococcus flavefaciens cellulosome. J. Biol. Chem. 2016, 291, 26658–26669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bule, P.; Alves, V.D.; Israeli-Ruimy, V.; Carvalho, A.L.; Ferreira, L.M.A.; Smith, S.P.; Gilbert, H.J.; Najmudin, S.; Bayer, E.A.; Fontes, C.M.G.A. Assembly of Ruminococcus flavefaciens cellulosome revealed by structures of two cohesin-dockerin complexes. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schoeler, C.; Malinowska, K.H.; Bernardi, R.C.; Milles, L.F.; Jobst, M.A.; Durner, E.; Ott, W.; Fried, D.B.; Bayer, E.A.; Schulten, K.; et al. Ultrastable cellulosome-adhesion complex tightens under load. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Goyal, D.; Kumar, K.; Centeno, M.S.J.; Thakur, A.; Pires, V.M.R.; Bule, P.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Goyal, A. Molecular cloning, expression and biochemical characterization of a family 5 glycoside hydrolase first endo-mannanase (RfGH5_7) from Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 v3. Mol. Biotechnol. 2019, 61, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mondal, S.; Thakur, A.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Goyal, A. A trimodular family 16 glycoside hydrolase from the cellulosome of Ruminococcus flavefaciens displays highly specific licheninase (EC 3.2.1.73) activity. Microbiology 2021, 167, 001055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gavande, P.V.; Nath, P.; Kumar, K.; Ahmed, N.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Goyal, A. Highly efficient, processive and multifunctional recombinant endoglucanase RfGH5_4 from Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 v3 for recycling lignocellulosic plant biomasses. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 209, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Venditto, I.; Luis, A.S.; Rydahl, M.; Schückel, J.; Fernandes, V.O.; Vidal-Melgosa, S.; Bule, P.; Goyal, A.; Pires, V.M.R.; Dourado, C.G.; et al. Complexity of the Ruminococcus flavefaciens cellulosome reflects an expansion in glycan recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 7136–7141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lamed, R.; Naimark, J.; Morgenstern, E.; Bayer, E.A. Specialized cell surface structures in cellulolytic bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 1987, 169, 3792–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ohara, H.; Karita, S.; Kimura, T.; Sakka, K.; Ohmiya, K. Characterization of the cellulolytic complex (cellulosome) from Ruminococcus albus. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2000, 64, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Ezer, A.; Matalon, E.; Jindou, S.; Borovok, I.; Atamna, N.; Yu, Z.T.; Morrison, M.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R. Cell surface enzyme attachment is mediated by family 37 carbohydrate-binding modules, unique to Ruminococcus albus. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 8220–8222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Rakotoarivonina, H.; Terrie, C.; Chambon, C.; Forano, E.; Mosoni, P. Proteomic identification of CBM37-containing cellulases produced by the rumen cellulolytic bacterium Ruminococcus albus 20 and their putative involvement in bacterial adhesion to cellulose. Arch. Microbiol. 2009, 191, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Devillard, E.; Goodheart, D.B.; Karnati, S.K.R.; Bayer, E.A.; Lamed, R.; Miron, J.; Nelson, K.E.; Morrison, M. Ruminococcus albus 8 mutants defective in cellulose degradation are deficient in two processive endocellulases, Cel48A and Cel9B, both of which possess a novel modular architecture. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Christopherson, M.R.; Dawson, J.A.; Stevenson, D.M.; Cunningham, A.C.; Bramhacharya, S.; Weimer, P.J.; Kendziorski, C.; Suen, G. Unique aspects of fiber degradation by the ruminal ethanologen Ruminococcus albus 7 revealed by physiological and transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ohara, H.; Noguchi, J.; Karita, S.; Kimura, T.; Sakka, K.; Ohmiya, K. Sequence of egV and Properties of EgV, a Ruminococcus albus Endoglucanase Containing a Dockerin Domain. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2000, 64, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wilson, C.A.; Wood, T.M. Studies on the cellulase of the rumen anaerobic fungus Neocallimastix frontalis, with special reference to the capacity of the enzyme to degrade crystalline cellulose. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 1992, 14, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Henske, J.K.; Gilmore, S.P.; Knop, D.; Cunningham, F.J.; Sexton, J.A.; Smallwood, C.R.; Shutthanandan, V.; Evans, J.E.; Theodorou, M.K.; O’Malley, M.A. Transcriptomic characterization of Caecomyces churrovis: A novel, non-rhizoid-forming lignocellulolytic anaerobic fungus. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fanutti, C.; Ponyi, T.; Black, G.W.; Hazlewood, G.P.; Gilbert, H.J. The conserved noncatalytic 40-residue sequence in cellulases and hemicellulases from anaerobic fungi functions as a protein docking domain. J. Biol. Chem. 1995, 270, 29314–29322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Bayer, E.A.; Belaich, J.P.; Shoham, Y.; Lamed, R. The cellulosomes: Multienzyme machines for degradation of plant cell wall polysaccharides. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 58, 521–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Steenbakkers, P.J.M.; Harhangi, H.R.; Bosscher, M.W.; van der Hooft, M.M.C.; Keltjens, J.T.; van der Drift, C.; Vogels, G.D.; Den Camp, H. β-glucosidase in cellulosome of the anaerobic fungus Piromyces sp. strain E2 is a family 3 glycoside hydrolase. Biochem. J. 2003, 370, 963–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Hess, M.; Paul, S.S.; Puniya, A.K.; van der Giezen, M.; Shaw, C.; Edwards, J.E.; Fliegerova, K. Anaerobic fungi: Past, present, and future. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 584893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Murphy, C.L.; Youssef, N.H.; Hanafy, R.A.; Couger, M.B.; Stajich, J.E.; Wang, Y.; Baker, K.; Dagar, S.S.; Griffith, G.W.; Farag, I.F.; et al. Horizontal gene transfer as an indispensable driver for evolution of Neocallimastigomycota into a distinct gut-dwelling fungal lineage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00988-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Moraïs, S.; Ben David, Y.; Bensoussan, L.; Duncan, S.H.; Koropatkin, N.M.; Martens, E.C.; Flint, H.J.; Bayer, E.A. Enzymatic profiling of cellulosomal enzymes from the human gut bacterium, Ruminococcus champanellensis, reveals a fine-tuned system for cohesin-dockerin recognition. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 542–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Moraïs, S.; Barak, Y.; Lamed, R.; Wilson, D.B.; Xu, Q.; Himmel, M.E.; Bayer, E.A. Paradigmatic status of an endo- and exoglucanase and its effect on crystalline cellulose degradation. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2012, 5, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Vazana, Y.; Moraïs, S.; Barak, Y.; Lamed, R.; Bayer, E.A. Interplay between Clostridium thermocellum family 48 and family 9 cellulases in cellulosomal versus noncellulosomal states. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 3236–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zhang, X.Z.; Sathitsuksanoh, N.; Zhang, Y.H.P. Glycoside hydrolase family 9 processive endoglucanase from Clostridium phytofermentans: Heterologous expression, characterization, and synergy with family 48 cellobiohydrolase. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5534–5538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ze, X.; David, Y.B.; Laverde-Gomez, J.A.; Dassa, B.; Sheridan, P.O.; Duncan, S.H.; Louis, P.; Henrissat, B.; Juge, N.; Koropatkin, N.M.; et al. Unique organization of extracellular amylases into amylosomes in the resistant starch-utilizing human colonic Firmicutes bacterium Ruminococcus bromii. mBio 2015, 6, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Clayton, J.B.; Gomez, A.; Amato, K.; Knights, D.; Travis, D.A.; Blekhman, R.; Knight, R.; Leigh, S.; Stumpf, R.; Wolf, T.; et al. The gut microbiome of nonhuman primates: Lessons in ecology and evolution. Am. J. Primatol. 2018, 80, e22867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Milton, K.; McBee, R.H. Rates of fermentative digestion in the howler monkey, Alouatta palliata (primates: Ceboidea). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Physiol. 1983, 74, 29–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Xu, B.; Xu, W.; Li, J.; Dai, L.; Xiong, C.; Tang, X.; Yang, Y.; Mu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Ding, J.; et al. Metagenomic analysis of the Rhinopithecus bieti fecal microbiome reveals a broad diversity of bacterial and glycoside hydrolase profiles related to lignocellulose degradation. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Newman, T.M.; Shively, C.A.; Register, T.C.; Appt, S.E.; Yadav, H.; Colwell, R.R.; Fanelli, B.; Dadlani, M.; Graubics, K.; Nguyen, U.T.; et al. Diet, obesity, and the gut microbiome as determinants modulating metabolic outcomes in a non-human primate model. Microbiome 2021, 9, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Houtkamp, I.M.; van Zijll Langhout, M.; Bessem, M.; Pirovano, W.; Kort, R. Multiomics characterisation of the zoo-housed gorilla gut microbiome reveals bacterial community compositions shifts, fungal cellulose-degrading, and archaeal methanogenic activity. Gut Microbiome 2023, 4, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Li, Q.; Fei, H.-L.; Luo, Z.-H.; Gao, S.-M.; Wang, P.-D.; Lan, L.-Y.; Zhao, X.-F.; Huang, L.-N.; Fan, P.-F. Gut microbiome responds compositionally and functionally to the seasonal diet variations in wild gibbons. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2023, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Brune, A.; Friedrich, M. Microecology of the termite gut: Structure and function on a microscale. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2000, 3, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Maurice, N.; Erdei, L. Termite Gut Microbiome. In Termites and Sustainable Management: Volume 1—Biology, Social Behaviour and Economic Importance; Khan, M.A., Ahmad, W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 69–99. [Google Scholar]
  130. Brune, A.; Dietrich, C. The gut microbiota of termites: Digesting the diversity in the light of ecology and evolution. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 69, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wenzel, M.; Schönig, I.; Berchtold, M.; Kämpfer, P.; König, H. Aerobic and facultatively anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria from the gut of the termite Zootermopsis angusticollis. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002, 92, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ni, J.F.; Tokuda, G. Lignocellulose-degrading enzymes from termites and their symbiotic microbiota. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 838–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hethener, P.; Brauman, A.; Garcia, J.L. Clostridium termitidis sp. nov., a cellulolytic bacterium from the gut of the wood-feeding termite, Nasutitermes lujae. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1992, 15, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Collins, M.D.; Lawson, P.A.; Willems, A.; Cordoba, J.J.; Fernandezgarayzabal, J.; Garcia, P.; Cai, J.; Hippe, H.; Farrow, J.A.E. The phylogeny of the genus Clostridium: Proposal of five new genera and eleven new species combinations. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994, 44, 812–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zhang, X.; Tu, B.; Dai, L.R.; Lawson, P.A.; Zheng, Z.Z.; Liu, L.Y.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cheng, L. Petroclostridium xylanilyticum gen. nov., sp. nov., a xylan-degrading bacterium isolated from an oilfield, and reclassification of clostridial cluster III members into four novel genera in a new Hungateiclostridiaceae fam. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2018, 68, 3197–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Munir, R.I.; Spicer, V.; Shamshurin, D.; Krokhin, O.V.; Wilkins, J.; Ramachandran, U.; Sparling, R.; Levin, D.B. Quantitative proteomic analysis of the cellulolytic system of Clostridium termitidis CT1112 reveals distinct protein expression profiles upon growth on α-cellulose and cellobiose. J. Proteom. 2015, 125, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Munir, R.I.; Spicer, V.; Krokhin, O.V.; Shamshurin, D.; Zhang, X.L.; Taillefer, M.; Blunt, W.; Cicek, N.; Sparling, R.; Levin, D.B. Transcriptomic and proteomic analyses of core metabolism in Clostridium termitidis CT1112 during growth on α-cellulose, xylan, cellobiose and xylose. BMC Microbiol. 2016, 16, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Xu, C.; Huang, R.; Teng, L.; Jing, X.; Hu, J.; Cui, G.; Wang, Y.; Cui, Q.; Xu, J. Cellulosome stoichiometry in Clostridium cellulolyticum is regulated by selective RNA processing and stabilization. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Riederer, A.; Takasuka, T.E.; Makino, S.; Stevenson, D.M.; Bukhman, Y.V.; Elsen, N.L.; Fox, B.G. Global gene expression patterns in Clostridium thermocellum as determined by microarray analysis of chemostat cultures on cellulose or cellobiose. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 1243–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Brune, A. Symbiotic digestion of lignocellulose in termite guts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 12, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Miyata, R.; Noda, N.; Tamaki, H.; Kinjyo, K.; Aoyagi, H.; Uchiyama, H.; Tanaka, H. Influence of feed components on symbiotic bacterial community structure in the gut of the wood-feeding higher termite Nasutitermes takasagoensis. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2007, 71, 1244–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Marynowska, M.; Goux, X.; Sillam-Dussès, D.; Rouland-Lefèvre, C.; Halder, R.; Wilmes, P.; Gawron, P.; Roisin, Y.; Delfosse, P.; Calusinska, M. Compositional and functional characterisation of biomass-degrading microbial communities in guts of plant fibre- and soil-feeding higher termites. Microbiome 2020, 8, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Watanabe, H.; Tokuda, G. Cellulolytic systems in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010, 55, 609–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Senadheera, U.E.; Jayasanka, D.J.; Udayanga, D.; Hewawasam, C. Natural and designer cellulosomes: A potential tool for enhancing microbial additive-mediated lignocellulosic agricultural waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2024, 25, 101695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Liu, Y.-J.; Yan, F.; Dong, W.; Sun, Y.; Wei, R.; Feng, Y. Optimized whole-cell depolymerization of polyethylene terephthalate to monomers using engineered Clostridium thermocellum. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 488, 137441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Aer, L.; Jiang, Q.; Zhong, L.; Si, Q.; Liu, X.; Pan, Y.; Feng, J.; Zeng, H.; Tang, L. Optimization of polyethylene terephthalate biodegradation using a self-assembled multi-enzyme cascade strategy. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 476, 134887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Fundamental framework of cellulosomes. (A) Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly, highlighting the cohesin–dockerin interaction-mediated organization of catalytic subunits on the hierarchical scaffoldin backbone. (B) Structural models of key assembly modules in cellulosomes. Note: S-layer homology (SLH) domain structure shown is derived from Paenibacillus alvei, as no high-resolution structural data is currently available for cellulosome-associated SLH domains.
Figure 1. Fundamental framework of cellulosomes. (A) Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly, highlighting the cohesin–dockerin interaction-mediated organization of catalytic subunits on the hierarchical scaffoldin backbone. (B) Structural models of key assembly modules in cellulosomes. Note: S-layer homology (SLH) domain structure shown is derived from Paenibacillus alvei, as no high-resolution structural data is currently available for cellulosome-associated SLH domains.
Catalysts 15 00387 g001
Figure 2. Assembly and structural organization of R. flavefaciens cellulosomes. (A) Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly in R. flavefaciens FD-1. The different groups of cohesin-dockerin modules are colored differently with the unclassified modules shown in grey. (B) Structural models of cohesin–dockerin complexes, with cohesin, dockerin, X-module and calcium ions depicted in green, red, blue and yellow, respectively. Structures are aligned based on the dockerins.
Figure 2. Assembly and structural organization of R. flavefaciens cellulosomes. (A) Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly in R. flavefaciens FD-1. The different groups of cohesin-dockerin modules are colored differently with the unclassified modules shown in grey. (B) Structural models of cohesin–dockerin complexes, with cohesin, dockerin, X-module and calcium ions depicted in green, red, blue and yellow, respectively. Structures are aligned based on the dockerins.
Catalysts 15 00387 g002
Figure 3. Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly in R. champanellensis. The different groups of cohesin-dockerin modules are colored differently with the unclassified modules shown in grey.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of cellulosome assembly in R. champanellensis. The different groups of cohesin-dockerin modules are colored differently with the unclassified modules shown in grey.
Catalysts 15 00387 g003
Figure 4. Research and application prospect of digestive tract cellulosomes.
Figure 4. Research and application prospect of digestive tract cellulosomes.
Catalysts 15 00387 g004
Table 1. Cellulosome systems in different digestive tract microorganisms.
Table 1. Cellulosome systems in different digestive tract microorganisms.
HostStrainScaffoldins/CohesinsDockerin-Containing Proteins/CAZymesGenome Accession NumberReference
CowRuminococcus flavefaciens FD-117/27223/154ACOK00000000 [27,28]
CowRuminococcus flavefaciens 1711/21180/123AFNE00000000 [28,29]
CowRuminococcus flavefaciens 007c10/16183/122ATAX01000000 [28,30]
CowRuminococcus albus 71/190/122GCA_000179635.2 [28,31]
CowRuminococcus albus 80/062/114GCF_000178155.2 [28]
SheepRuminococcus albus SY31/158/124GCF_000586615.1 [28]
HumanRuminococcus champanellensis 18P1311/2064/107FP929052.1 [20,24]
Human and nonhuman primateRuminococcus primaciens, Ruminococcus hominiciens and Ruminococcus ruminiciens--- [25]
TermiteClostridium termitidis CT11125/522/355AORV00000000 [26,32]
SheepAnaeromyces robustus26/-276/-MCFG00000000 [33]
GoatNeocallimastix californiae55/-422/-MCOG00000000 [33]
HorsePiromyces finnis14/-227/-MCFH00000000 [33]
- not reported.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qi, J.; Zhang, M.; Chen, C.; Feng, Y.; Xuan, J. Cellulosome Systems in the Digestive Tract: Underexplored Enzymatic Machine for Lignocellulose Bioconversion. Catalysts 2025, 15, 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15040387

AMA Style

Qi J, Zhang M, Chen C, Feng Y, Xuan J. Cellulosome Systems in the Digestive Tract: Underexplored Enzymatic Machine for Lignocellulose Bioconversion. Catalysts. 2025; 15(4):387. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15040387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi, Jiajing, Mengke Zhang, Chao Chen, Yingang Feng, and Jinsong Xuan. 2025. "Cellulosome Systems in the Digestive Tract: Underexplored Enzymatic Machine for Lignocellulose Bioconversion" Catalysts 15, no. 4: 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15040387

APA Style

Qi, J., Zhang, M., Chen, C., Feng, Y., & Xuan, J. (2025). Cellulosome Systems in the Digestive Tract: Underexplored Enzymatic Machine for Lignocellulose Bioconversion. Catalysts, 15(4), 387. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15040387

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop