Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25814988›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2015

Electrifying microbes for the production of chemicals.

Pier-Luc Tremblay, Tian Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
20.0field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Reactor Designs and Configurations for Biological and Bioelectrochemical C1 Gas Conversion: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biological hydrogen production: molecular and electrolytic perspectives.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. MoBiotechnology for biofuels · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Construction of aFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pier-Luc TremblayNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Hørsholm Denmark.
Tian ZhangNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Hørsholm Denmark.
Novo Nordisk Foundation · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Powering microbes with electrical energy to produce valuable chemicals such as biofuels has recently gained traction as a biosustainable strategy to reduce our dependence on oil. Microbial electrosynthesis (MES) is one of the bioelectrochemical approaches developed in the last decade that could have critical impact on the current methods of chemical synthesis. MES is a process in which electroautotrophic microbes use electrical current as electron source to reduce CO2 to multicarbon organics. Electricity necessary for MES can be harvested from renewable resources such as solar energy, wind turbine, or wastewater treatment processes. The net outcome is that renewable energy is stored in the covalent bonds of organic compounds synthesized from greenhouse gas. This review will discuss the future of MES and the challenges that lie ahead for its development into a mature technology.

Indexed as

bioelectrochemical systemsCO2 reductionelectricityelectron transfer mechanismsmicrobial electrosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID25814988
PMCPMC4356085
OpenAlexW2152408857

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.