Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15755956›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR2005

Cellulase, clostridia, and ethanol.

Arnold L Demain, Michael Newcomb, J H David Wu

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 217 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
217citing papers in PubMed
33.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

217 citing papers in PubMed, 907 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. HisAMB Express · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ACS synthetic biology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

157 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arnold L DemainCharles A. Dana Research Institute for Scientists Emeriti, HS-330, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940, USA. ademain@drew.edu
Michael Newcomb
J H David Wu
University of Rochester · USDrew University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomass conversion to ethanol as a liquid fuel by the thermophilic and anaerobic clostridia offers a potential partial solution to the problem of the world's dependence on petroleum for energy. Coculture of a cellulolytic strain and a saccharolytic strain of Clostridium on agricultural resources, as well as on urban and industrial cellulosic wastes, is a promising approach to an alternate energy source from an economic viewpoint. This review discusses the need for such a process, the cellulases of clostridia, their presence in extracellular complexes or organelles (the cellulosomes), the binding of the cellulosomes to cellulose and to the cell surface, cellulase genetics, regulation of their synthesis, cocultures, ethanol tolerance, and metabolic pathway engineering for maximizing ethanol yield.

Indexed as

Acetivibrio thermocellusBacterial ProteinsCarbonCellulaseClostridiumCoculture TechniquesEnergy MetabolismEthanolBacterial ProteinsCarbonCellulaseEthanol

Identifiers

PMID15755956
PMCPMC1082790
OpenAlexW2140861527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.