Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24487819›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2014

Symbiotic digestion of lignocellulose in termite guts.

Andreas Brune

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 384 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
384citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
48.3field-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

384 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 926 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Diversity of theMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

324 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andreas BruneDepartment of Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 10, 35043 Marburg, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Their ability to degrade lignocellulose gives termites an important place in the carbon cycle. This ability relies on their partnership with a diverse community of bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic gut symbionts, which break down the plant fibre and ferment the products to acetate and variable amounts of methane, with hydrogen as a central intermediate. In addition, termites rely on the biosynthetic capacities of their gut microbiota as a nutritional resource. The mineralization of humus components in the guts of soil-feeding species also contributes to nitrogen cycling in tropical soils. Lastly, the high efficiency of their minute intestinal bioreactors makes termites promising models for the industrial conversion of lignocellulose into microbial products and the production of biofuels.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBiofuelsCarbonGastrointestinal TractIsopteraLigninNitrogenSymbiosisBiofuelsCarbonLigninlignocelluloseNitrogen

Identifiers

PMID24487819
OpenAlexW2059762609

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.