Awasthi MK, Singh E, Binod P, Sindhu R, Sarsaiya S, Kumar A, et al. Biotechnological strategies for bio-transforming biosolid into resources toward circular bio-economy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2022;156:111987.
Google Scholar
Diamantis V, Eftaxias A, Stamatelatou K, Noutsopoulos C, Vlachokostas C, Aivasidis A. Bioenergy in the era of circular economy: Anaerobic digestion technological solutions to produce biogas from lipid-rich wastes. Renew Energy. 2021;168:438–47.
Google Scholar
Peces M, Astals S, Jensen PD, Clarke WP. Deterministic mechanisms define the long-term anaerobic digestion microbiome and its functionality regardless of the initial microbial community. Water Res. 2018;141:366–76.
Google Scholar
Vanwonterghem I, Jensen PD, Dennis PG, Hugenholtz P, Rabaey K, Tyson GW. Deterministic processes guide long-term synchronised population dynamics in replicate anaerobic digesters. ISME J. 2014;8:2015–28.
Google Scholar
Lin Q, De Vrieze J, Li C, Li J, Li J, Yao M, et al. Temperature regulates deterministic processes and the succession of microbial interactions in anaerobic digestion process. Water Res. 2017;123:134–43.
Google Scholar
Herold M, Martínez Arbas S, Narayanasamy S, Sheik AR, Kleine-Borgmann LAK, Lebrun LA, et al. Integration of time-series meta-omics data reveals how microbial ecosystems respond to disturbance. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5281.
Google Scholar
Jiao J-Y, Liu L, Hua Z-S, Fang B-Z, Zhou E-M, Salam N, et al. Microbial dark matter coming to light: challenges and opportunities. Natl Sci Rev. 2021;8:nwaa280.
Google Scholar
Lewis WH, Tahon G, Geesink P, Sousa DZ, Ettema TJG. Innovations to culturing the uncultured microbial majority. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:225–40.
Google Scholar
Solden L, Lloyd K, Wrighton K. The bright side of microbial dark matter: lessons learned from the uncultivated majority. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2016;31:217–26.
Google Scholar
Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Metagenomics for studying unculturable microorganisms: cutting the Gordian knot. Genome Biol. 2005;6:6–9.
Google Scholar
Wommack KE, Bhavsar J, Ravel J. Metagenomics: read length matters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:1453–63.
Google Scholar
Shaffer JP, Nothias L-F, Thompson LR, Sanders JG, Salido RA, Couvillion SP, et al. Standardized multi-omics of Earth’s microbiomes reveals microbial and metabolite diversity. Nat Microbiol. 2022;7:2128–50.
Google Scholar
Nayfach S, Roux S, Seshadri R, Udwary D, Varghese N, Schulz F, et al. A genomic catalog of Earth’s microbiomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;39:499–509.
Google Scholar
Wirth R, Kovács E, Maróti G, Bagi Z, Rákhely G, Kovács KL. Characterization of a biogas-producing microbial community by short-read next generation DNA sequencing. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2012;5:41.
Google Scholar
Schlüter A, Bekel T, Diaz NN, Dondrup M, Eichenlaub R, Gartemann KH, et al. The metagenome of a biogas-producing microbial community of a production-scale biogas plant fermenter analysed by the 454-pyrosequencing technology. J Biotechnol. 2008;136:77–90.
Google Scholar
Sundberg C, Al-Soud WA, Larsson M, Alm E, Yekta SS, Svensson BH, et al. 454 Pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal richness in 21 full-scale biogas digesters. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013;85:612–26.
Google Scholar
Campanaro S, Treu L, Kougias PG, Luo G, Angelidaki I. Metagenomic binning reveals the functional roles of core abundant microorganisms in twelve full-scale biogas plants. Water Res. 2018;140:123–34.
Google Scholar
Ma S, Jiang F, Huang Y, Zhang Y, Wang S, Fan H, et al. A microbial gene catalog of anaerobic digestion from full-scale biogas plants. Gigascience. 2021;10:giaa164.
Google Scholar
Rivière D, Desvignes V, Pelletier E, Chaussonnerie S, Guermazi S, Weissenbach J, et al. Towards the definition of a core of microorganisms involved in anaerobic digestion of sludge. ISME J. 2009;3:700–14.
Google Scholar
Kirkegaard RH, McIlroy SJ, Kristensen JM, Nierychlo M, Karst SM, Dueholm MS, et al. The impact of immigration on microbial community composition in full-scale anaerobic digesters. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9343.
Google Scholar
Rui J, Li J, Zhang S, Yan X, Wang Y, Li X. The core populations and co‑occurrence patterns of prokaryotic communities in household biogas digesters. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2015;8:158.
Google Scholar
Calusinska M, Goux X, Fossépré M, Muller EEL, Wilmes P, Delfosse P. A year of monitoring 20 mesophilic full‑scale bioreactors reveals the existence of stable but different core microbiomes in bio-waste and wastewater anaerobic digestion systems. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;11:196.
Google Scholar
Stolze Y, Bremges A, Rumming M, Henke C, Maus I, Pühler A, et al. Identification and genome reconstruction of abundant distinct taxa in microbiomes from one thermophilic and three mesophilic production-scale biogas plants. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:156.
Google Scholar
Nobu MK, Narihiro T, Rinke C, Kamagata Y, Tringe SG, Woyke T, et al. Microbial dark matter ecogenomics reveals complex synergistic networks in a methanogenic bioreactor. ISME J. 2015;9:1710–22.
Google Scholar
Rinke C, Schwientek P, Sczyrba A, Ivanova NN, Anderson IJ, Cheng J-F, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature. 2013;499:431–7.
Google Scholar
Yang C, Chowdhury D, Zhang Z, Cheung WK, Lu A, Bian Z, et al. A review of computational tools for generating metagenome-assembled genomes from metagenomic sequencing data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19:6301–14.
Google Scholar
Bharti R, Grimm DG. Current challenges and best-practice protocols for microbiome analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22:178–93.
Google Scholar
Frioux C, Singh D, Korcsmaros T, Hildebrand F. From bag-of-genes to bag-of-genomes: metabolic modelling of communities in the era of metagenome-assembled genomes. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2020;18:1722–34.
Google Scholar
Campanaro S, Treu L, Rodriguez-R LM, Kovalovszki A, Ziels RM, Maus I, et al. New insights from the biogas microbiome by comprehensive genome-resolved metagenomics of nearly 1600 species originating from multiple anaerobic digesters. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2020;13:25.
Google Scholar
Campanaro S, Treu L, Kougias PG, De Francisci D, Valle G, Angelidaki I. Metagenomic analysis and functional characterization of the biogas microbiome using high throughput shotgun sequencing and a novel binning strategy. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:26.
Google Scholar
Treu L, Kougias PG, Campanaro S, Bassani I, Angelidaki I. Deeper insight into the structure of the anaerobic digestion microbial community; The biogas microbiome database is expanded with 157 new genomes. Bioresour Technol. 2016;216:260–6.
Google Scholar
De Bernardini N, Basile A, Zampieri G, Kovalovszki A, De B, Diaz D, et al. Integrating metagenomic binning with flux balance analysis to unravel syntrophies in anaerobic CO2 methanation. Microbiome. 2022;10:117.
Google Scholar
Lapidus AL, Korobeynikov AI. Metagenomic data assembly – The way of decoding unknown microorganisms. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:613791.
Google Scholar
Mise K, Iwasaki W. Unexpected absence of ribosomal protein genes from metagenome-assembled genomes. ISME Commun. 2022;2:118.
Google Scholar
Pan S, Zhu C, Zhao X-M, Luis, Coelho P. A deep siamese neural network improves metagenome-assembled genomes in microbiome datasets across different environments. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2326.
Google Scholar
Pan S, Zhao X-M, Coelho LP. SemiBin2: Self-supervised contrastive learning leads to better MAGs for short- and long-read sequencing. bioRxiv. 2023;2023.01:09.523201.
Neu AT, Allen EE, Roy K. Defining and quantifying the core microbiome: challenges and prospects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021;118:e2104429118.
Google Scholar
Wirth R, Pap B, Dudits D, Kakuk B, Bagi Z, Shetty P, et al. Genome-centric investigation of anaerobic digestion using sustainable second and third generation substrates. J Biotechnol. 2021;339:53–64.
Google Scholar
Szilágyi Á, Bodor A, Tolvai N, Kovács KL, Bodai L, Wirth R, et al. A comparative analysis of biogas production from tomato bio-waste in mesophilic batch and continuous anaerobic digestion systems. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0248654.
Google Scholar
Li D, Liu CM, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam TW. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1674–6.
Google Scholar
Eren AM, Esen ÖC, Quince C, Vineis JH, Morrison HG, Sogin ML, et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platform for ‘omics data. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1319.
Google Scholar
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.
Google Scholar
Chklovski A, Parks DH, Woodcroft BJ, Tyson GW. CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. bioRxiv. 2022;2022.07:11.499243.
Song W, Zhang S, Thomas T. MarkerMAG: linking metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with 16S rRNA marker genes using paired-end short reads. Bioinformatics. 2022;38:3684–8.
Google Scholar
Finn RD, Attwood TK, Babbitt PC, Bateman A, Bork P, Bridge AJ, et al. InterPro in 2017-beyond protein family and domain annotations. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D190–9.
Google Scholar
Qi M, Wang R, Jing B, Jian F, Ning C, Zhang L. Prevalence and multilocus genotyping of Cryptosporidium andersoni in dairy cattle and He cattle in Xinjiang, China. Infect Genet Evol. 2016;44:313–7.
Google Scholar
Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B. The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D490–5.
Google Scholar
Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Rinke C, Mussig AJ, Chaumeil P-A, Hugenholtz P. GTDB: an ongoing census of bacterial and archaeal diversity through a phylogenetically consistent, rank normalized and complete genome-based taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;50:D785–94.
Google Scholar
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5114.
Google Scholar
Uritskiy GV, DiRuggiero J, Taylor J. MetaWRAP—a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome. 2018;6:158.
Google Scholar
Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:1925–7.
Google Scholar
Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, Von Haeseler A, et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37:1530–4.
Google Scholar
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.
Google Scholar
Barnett DJM, Arts ICW, Penders J. microViz: an R package for microbiome data visualization and statistics. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6:3201.
Google Scholar
Liu C, Cui Y, Li X, Yao M. Microeco: An R package for data mining in microbial community ecology. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2021;97:fiaa255.
Google Scholar
Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R60.
Google Scholar
Peschel S, Müller CL, Von Mutius E, Boulesteix AL, Depner M. NetCoMi: network construction and comparison for microbiome data in R. Brief Bioinform. 2020;22:bbaa290.
Google Scholar
Kurtz ZD, Müller CL, Miraldi ER, Littman DR, Blaser MJ, Bonneau RA. Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004226.
Google Scholar
Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15:550.
Google Scholar
Kasinath A, Fudala-Ksiazek S, Szopinska M, Bylinski H, Artichowicz W, Remiszewska-Skwarek A, et al. Biomass in biogas production: Pretreatment and codigestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;150:111509.
Google Scholar
Khalid A, Arshad M, Anjum M, Mahmood T, Dawson L. The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manag. 2011;31:1737–44.
Google Scholar
Ma G, Ndegwa P, Harrison JH, Chen Y. Methane yields during anaerobic co-digestion of animal manure with other feedstocks: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2020;728:138224.
Google Scholar
Sarker S, Lamb JJ, Hjelme DR, Lien KM. A review of the role of critical parameters in the design and operation of biogas production plants. Appl Sci. 2019;9:1915.
Google Scholar
Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, Liu C, Lu X. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;76:1485–96.
Google Scholar
Pramanik SK, Suja FB, Zain SM, Pramanik BK. The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food waste: prospects and constraints. Bioresour Technol Rep. 2019;8:100310.
Google Scholar
Jiang C, Peces M, Andersen MH, Kucheryavskiy S, Nierychlo M, Yashiro E, et al. Characterizing the growing microorganisms at species level in 46 anaerobic digesters at Danish wastewater treatment plants: a six-year survey on microbial community structure and key drivers. Water Res. 2021;193:116871.
Google Scholar
Campanaro S, Treu L, Kougias PG, Zhu X, Angelidaki I. Taxonomy of anaerobic digestion microbiome reveals biases associated with the applied high throughput sequencing strategies. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1926.
Google Scholar
Bonk F, Popp D, Harms H, Centler F. PCR-based quantification of taxa-specific abundances in microbial communities: quantifying and avoiding common pitfalls. J Microbiol Methods. 2018;153:139–47.
Google Scholar
Lavrinienko A, Jernfors T, Koskimäki JJ, Pirttilä AM, Watts PC. Does intraspecific variation in rDNA copy number affect analysis of microbial communities? Trends Microbiol. 2021;29:19–27.
Google Scholar
Louca S, Doebeli M, Parfrey LW. Correcting for 16S rRNA gene copy numbers in microbiome surveys remains an unsolved problem. Microbiome. 2018;6:41.
Google Scholar
Zhang L, Loh KC, Lim JW, Zhang J. Bioinformatics analysis of metagenomics data of biogas-producing microbial communities in anaerobic digesters: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019;100:110–26.
Google Scholar
De Vrieze J, Regueiro L, Props R, Vilchez-Vargas R, Jáuregui R, Pieper DH, et al. Presence does not imply activity: DNA and RNA patterns differ in response to salt perturbation in anaerobic digestion. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:244.
Google Scholar
De Vrieze J, Pinto AJ, Sloan WT, Boon N, Ijaz UZ. The active microbial community more accurately reflects the anaerobic digestion process: 16S rRNA (gene) sequencing as a predictive tool. Microbiome. 2018;6:63.
Google Scholar
Werner JJ, Knights D, Garcia ML, Scalfone NB, Smith S, Yarasheski K, et al. Bacterial community structures are unique and resilient in full-scale bioenergy systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:4158–63.
Google Scholar
Zhang Q, Wang M, Ma X, Gao Q, Wang T, Shi X, et al. High variations of methanogenic microorganisms drive full-scale anaerobic digestion process. Environ Int. 2019;126:543–51.
Google Scholar
Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725–31.
Google Scholar
Güllert S, Fischer MA, Turaev D, Noebauer B, Ilmberger N, Wemheuer B, et al. Deep metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of microbial communities affiliated with an industrial biogas fermenter, a cow rumen, and elephant feces reveal major differences in carbohydrate hydrolysis strategies. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:121.
Google Scholar
Liu Y, Whitman WB. Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1125:171–89.
Google Scholar
Stams AJM, Plugge CM. Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:568–77.
Google Scholar
Zhou M, Yang H, Zheng D, Pu X, Liu Y, Wang L, et al. Methanogenic activity and microbial communities characteristics in dry and wet anaerobic digestion sludges from swine manure. Biochem Eng J. 2019;152:107390.
Google Scholar
Parks DH, Rinke C, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil PA, Woodcroft BJ, Evans PN, et al. Recovery of nearly 8000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:1533–42.
Google Scholar
Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil PA, Rinke C, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for Bacteria and Archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:1079–86.
Google Scholar
Schneider D, Zühlke D, Poehlein A, Riedel K, Daniel R. Metagenome-assembled genome sequences from different wastewater treatment stages in Germany. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2021;10:10–2.
Google Scholar
Singleton CM, Petriglieri F, Kristensen JM, Kirkegaard RH, Michaelsen TY, Andersen MH, et al. Connecting structure to function with the recovery of over 1000 high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes from activated sludge using long-read sequencing. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2009.
Google Scholar
Thauer RK, Kaster AK, Seedorf H, Buckel W, Hedderich R. Methanogenic archaea: ecologically relevant differences in energy conservation. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:579–91.
Google Scholar
Mei R, Nobu MK, Narihiro T, Liu WT. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses revealed uncultured Bacteroidales populations as the dominant proteolytic amino acid degraders in anaerobic digesters. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:5930006.
Google Scholar
Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Liu F, Shrestha M, Shrestha D, Embree M, et al. A new model for electron flow during anaerobic digestion: Direct interspecies electron transfer to Methanosaeta for the reduction of carbon dioxide to methane. Energy Environ Sci. 2014;7:408–15.
Google Scholar
Li L, Xu Y, Dai X, Dai L. Principles and advancements in improving anaerobic digestion of organic waste via direct interspecies electron transfer. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;148:111367.
Google Scholar
Chen L, Fang W, Chang J, Liang J, Zhang P, Zhang G. Improvement of direct interspecies electron transfer via adding conductive materials in anaerobic digestion: mechanisms, performances, and challenges. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:860749.
Google Scholar
Stams AJM, De Bok FAM, Plugge CM, Van Eekert MHA, Dolfing J, Schraa G. Exocellular electron transfer in anaerobic microbial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:371–82.
Google Scholar
Nobu MK, Narihiro T, Mei R, Kamagata Y, Lee PKH, Lee P-H, et al. Catabolism and interactions of uncultured organisms shaped by eco-thermodynamics in methanogenic bioprocesses. Microbiome. 2020;8:111.
Google Scholar
Gehring T, Niedermayr A, Berzio S, Immenhauser A, Wichern M, Lübken M. Determination of the fractions of syntrophically oxidized acetate in a mesophilic methanogenic reactor through an 12C and 13C isotope-based kinetic model. Water Res. 2016;102:362–73.
Google Scholar
Capson-Tojo G, Moscoviz R, Astals S, Robles, Steyer JP. Unraveling the literature chaos around free ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020;117:109487.
Google Scholar
André I, Potocki-Véronèse G, Barbe S, Moulis C, Remaud-Siméon M. CAZyme discovery and design for sweet dreams. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2014;19:17–24.
Google Scholar
Hanreich A, Schimpf U, Zakrzewski M, Schlüter A, Benndorf D, Heyer R, et al. Metagenome and metaproteome analyses of microbial communities in mesophilic biogas-producing anaerobic batch fermentations indicate concerted plant carbohydrate degradation. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2013;36:330–8.
Google Scholar
Heyer R, Benndorf D, Kohrs F, De Vrieze J, Boon N, Hoffmann M, et al. Proteotyping of biogas plant microbiomes separates biogas plants according to process temperature and reactor type. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:155.
Google Scholar
Maus I, Koeck DE, Cibis KG, Hahnke S, Kim YS, Langer T, et al. Unraveling the microbiome of a thermophilic biogas plant by metagenome and metatranscriptome analysis complemented by characterization of bacterial and archaeal isolates. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:171.
Google Scholar
Hassa J, Maus I, Off S, Pühler A, Scherer P, Klocke M, et al. Metagenome, metatranscriptome, and metaproteome approaches unraveled compositions and functional relationships of microbial communities residing in biogas plants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;102:5045–63.
Google Scholar
Detman A, Bucha M, Treu L, Chojnacka A, Pleśniak Ł, Salamon A, et al. Evaluation of acidogenesis products’ effect on biogas production performed with metagenomics and isotopic approaches. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2021;14:125.
Google Scholar
Hendrickson EL, Haydock AK, Moore BC, Whitman WB, Leigh JA. Functionally distinct genes regulated by hydrogen limitation and growth rate in methanogenic Archaea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:8930–4.
Google Scholar
