Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27022996›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2016

Differences down-under: alcohol-fueled methanogenesis by archaea present in Australian macropodids.

Emily C Hoedt, Páraic Ó Cuív, Paul N Evans, Wendy J M Smith, Chris S McSweeney, Stuart E Denman, Mark Morrison

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  7. Isolation of aFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Methyl-Based Methanogenesis: an Ecological and Genomic Review.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Current research in microbial sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Ecology of Methanonatronarchaeia.Environmental microbiology · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Several ways one goal-methanogenesis from unconventional substrates.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily C HoedtSchool of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Páraic Ó CuívThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute (TRI), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Paul N EvansSchool of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Wendy J M SmithCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Chris S McSweeneyCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Stuart E DenmanCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Mark MorrisonThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute (TRI), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUUniversity of Queensland · AUTranslational Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Australian macropodids (kangaroos and wallabies) possess a distinctive foregut microbiota that contributes to their reduced methane emissions. However, methanogenic archaea are present within the macropodid foregut, although there is scant understanding of these microbes. Here, an isolate taxonomically assigned to the Methanosphaera genus (Methanosphaera sp. WGK6) was recovered from the anterior sacciform forestomach contents of a Western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus). Like the human gut isolate Methanosphaera stadtmanae DSMZ 3091(T), strain WGK6 is a methylotroph with no capacity for autotrophic growth. In contrast, though with the human isolate, strain WGK6 was found to utilize ethanol to support growth, but principally as a source of reducing power. Both the WGK6 and DSMZ 3091(T) genomes are very similar in terms of their size, synteny and G:C content. However, the WGK6 genome was found to encode contiguous genes encoding putative alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases, which are absent from the DSMZ 3091(T) genome. Interestingly, homologs of these genes are present in the genomes for several other members of the Methanobacteriales. In WGK6, these genes are cotranscribed under both growth conditions, and we propose the two genes provide a plausible explanation for the ability of WGK6 to utilize ethanol for methanol reduction to methane. Furthermore, our in vitro studies suggest that ethanol supports a greater cell yield per mol of methane formed compared to hydrogen-dependent growth. Taken together, this expansion in metabolic versatility can explain the persistence of these archaea in the kangaroo foregut, and their abundance in these 'low-methane-emitting' herbivores.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAlcoholsAnimalsArchaeaAustraliaBase CompositionHydrogenMacropodidaeMethaneStomachAlcoholsHydrogenMethane

Identifiers

PMID27022996
PMCPMC5030694
OpenAlexW2329516568

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.