Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25022311›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2013

Cyanobacteria as a Platform for Biofuel Production.

Nicole E Nozzi, John W K Oliver, Shota Atsumi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Engineered Living Hydrogels.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The survivor strain: isolation and characterization ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  20. Review

3 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.

Nicole E NozziDepartment of Chemistry, University of California Davis , Davis, CA , USA.
John W K OliverDepartment of Chemistry, University of California Davis , Davis, CA , USA.
Shota AtsumiDepartment of Chemistry, University of California Davis , Davis, CA , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyanobacteria have great potential as a platform for biofuel production because of their fast growth, ability to fix carbon dioxide gas, and their genetic tractability. Furthermore they do not require fermentable sugars or arable land for growth and so competition with cropland would be greatly reduced. In this perspective we discuss the challenges and areas for improvement most pertinent for advancing cyanobacterial fuel production, including: improving genetic parts, carbon fixation, metabolic flux, nutrient requirements on a large scale, and photosynthetic efficiency using natural light.

Indexed as

biofuelcyanobacteriametabolic engineeringphotosynthesissynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID25022311
PMCPMC4090892

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.