ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2013
Phototrophic sulfide oxidation: environmental insights and a method for kinetic analysis.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-evolution of early Earth environments and microbial life.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024Review
- Isotopic Signatures of Carbon Transfer in a Proterozoic Analogue Microbial Mat.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- Abundant and persistent sulfur-oxidizing microbial populations are responsive to hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay.Environmental microbiology · 2022Article
- Omics-Inferred Partitioning and Expression of Diverse Biogeochemical Functions in a Low-OmSystems · 2021Article
- Anoxygenic photo- and chemo-synthesis of phototrophic sulfur bacteria from an alpine meromictic lake.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2021Article
- Millions of Boreal Shield Lakes can be used to Probe Archaean Ocean Biogeochemistry.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Mechanism of HmBio · 2017Article
- Photosynthetic Versatility in the Genome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Light-dependent sulfide oxidation in the anoxic zone of the Chesapeake Bay can be explained by small populations of phototrophic bacteria.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previously, we presented data that indicated microbial sulfide oxidation would out-compete strictly chemical, abiotic sulfide oxidation reactions under nearly all conditions relevant to extant ecosystems (Luther et al., 2011). In particular, we showed how anaerobic microbial sulfide oxidation rates were several orders of magnitude higher than even metal catalyzed aerobic sulfide oxidation processes. The fact that biotic anaerobic sulfide oxidation is kinetically superior to abiotic reactions implies that nearly all anaerobic and sulfidic environments should host microbial populations that oxidize sulfide at appreciable rates. This was likely an important biogeochemical process during long stretches of euxinia in the oceans suggested by the geologic record. In particular, phototrophic sulfide oxidation allows the utilization of carbon dioxide as the electron acceptor suggesting that this process should be particularly widespread rather than relying on the presence of other chemical oxidants. Using the Chesapeake Bay as an example, we argue that phototrophic sulfide oxidation may be more important in many environments than is currently appreciated. Finally, we present methodological considerations to assist other groups that wish to study this process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.