ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2016
Comparison of microbial communities during the anaerobic digestion of Gracilaria under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface sediment microbial communities remain viable, culturable, and metabolically active during sequential heating.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- pH Regulates the Formation and Hatching ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2022Article
- New Insights into the Ecology and Physiology ofMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Genetic Plasticity and Ethylmalonyl Coenzyme A Pathway during Acetate Assimilation in Rhodospirillum rubrum S1H under Photoheterotrophic Conditions.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digesters (MD and TD, respectively) utilizing Gracilaria and marine sediment as the substrate and inoculum, respectively, were compared by analyzing their performances and microbial community changes. During three successive transfers, the average cumulative methane yields in the MD and TD were 222.6 ± 17.3 mL CH4/g volatile solids (VS) and 246.1 ± 11 mL CH4/g VS, respectively. The higher hydrolysis rate and acidogenesis in the TD resulted in a several fold greater accumulation of volatile fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate) followed by a larger pH drop with a prolonged recovery than in the MD. However, the operational stability between both digesters remained comparable. Pyrosequencing analyses revealed that the MD had more complex microbial diversity indices and microbial community changes than the TD. Interestingly, Methanomassiliicoccales, the seventh methanogen order was the predominant archaeal order in the MD along with bacterial orders of Clostridiales, Bacteriodales, and Synergistales. Meanwhile, Coprothermobacter and Methanobacteriales dominated the bacterial and archaeal community in the TD, respectively. Although the methane yield is comparable, both MD and TD show a different profile of pH, VFA and the microbial communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27562592What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.