Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27441002›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology insights2016

Role of Escherichia coli in Biofuel Production.

Veerendra Koppolu, Veneela Kr Vasigala

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology insights, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Metabolism.Essays in biochemistry · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Discovery and implementation of a novel pathway forBiotechnology for biofuels · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Understanding and engineering alcohol-tolerant bacteria using OMICS technology.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2018
    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

2 authors.

Veerendra KoppoluScientist, Department of Analytical Biotechnology, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.; Former affiliation: Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Veneela Kr VasigalaRangaraya Medical College, NTR University of Health Sciences, Kakinada, AP, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increased energy consumption coupled with depleting petroleum reserves and increased greenhouse gas emissions have renewed our interest in generating fuels from renewable energy sources via microbial fermentation. Central to this problem is the choice of microorganism that catalyzes the production of fuels at high volumetric productivity and yield from cheap and abundantly available renewable energy sources. Microorganisms that are metabolically engineered to redirect renewable carbon sources into desired fuel products are contemplated as best choices to obtain high volumetric productivity and yield. Considering the availability of vast knowledge in genomic and metabolic fronts, Escherichia coli is regarded as a primary choice for the production of biofuels. Here, we reviewed the microbial production of liquid biofuels that have the potential to be used either alone or in combination with the present-day fuels. We specifically highlighted the metabolic engineering and synthetic biology approaches used to improve the production of biofuels from E. coli over the past few years. We also discussed the challenges that still exist for the biofuel production from E. coli and their possible solutions.

Indexed as

biodieselbioethanolbiofuelEscherichia coli (E. coli)isobutanolisopropanolmetabolic engineeringmicrobial production of fuelsn-butanolpropanol

Identifiers

PMID27441002
PMCPMC4946582

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.