Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24970208›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2014

Microbial enzymes: tools for biotechnological processes.

Jose L Adrio, Arnold L Demain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

152 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biotechnological Applications of Bacteria.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

92 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

2 authors.

Jose L AdrioNeol Biosolutions SA, BIC Granada, Granada 18016, Spain. jladrio@neolbio.com.
Arnold L DemainResearch Institute for Scientists Emeriti (R.I.S.E.), Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940, USA. ademain@drew.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial enzymes are of great importance in the development of industrial bioprocesses. Current applications are focused on many different markets including pulp and paper, leather, detergents and textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemical, food and beverages, biofuels, animal feed and personal care, among others. Today there is a need for new, improved or/and more versatile enzymes in order to develop more novel, sustainable and economically competitive production processes. Microbial diversity and modern molecular techniques, such as metagenomics and genomics, are being used to discover new microbial enzymes whose catalytic properties can be improved/modified by different strategies based on rational, semi-rational and random directed evolution. Most industrial enzymes are recombinant forms produced in bacteria and fungi.

Indexed as

BacteriaBacterial ProteinsBiocatalysisBiotechnologyFungal ProteinsFungiBacterial ProteinsFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24970208
PMCPMC4030981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.