Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28371373›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2017

Microbial enzymes for the recycling of recalcitrant petroleum-based plastics: how far are we?

Ren Wei, Wolfgang Zimmermann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 206 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
206citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

206 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Comparative Characterization of σInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. YeastInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

146 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

2 authors.

Ren WeiDepartment of Microbiology and Bioprocess Technology, Institute of Biochemistry, Leipzig University, Johannisallee 21-23, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Wolfgang ZimmermannDepartment of Microbiology and Bioprocess Technology, Institute of Biochemistry, Leipzig University, Johannisallee 21-23, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Petroleum-based plastics have replaced many natural materials in their former applications. With their excellent properties, they have found widespread uses in almost every area of human life. However, the high recalcitrance of many synthetic plastics results in their long persistence in the environment, and the growing amount of plastic waste ending up in landfills and in the oceans has become a global concern. In recent years, a number of microbial enzymes capable of modifying or degrading recalcitrant synthetic polymers have been identified. They are emerging as candidates for the development of biocatalytic plastic recycling processes, by which valuable raw materials can be recovered in an environmentally sustainable way. This review is focused on microbial biocatalysts involved in the degradation of the synthetic plastics polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Recent progress in the application of polyester hydrolases for the recovery of PET building blocks and challenges for the application of these enzymes in alternative plastic waste recycling processes will be discussed.

Indexed as

BacteriaBacterial ProteinsBiodegradation, EnvironmentalPetroleumPlasticsRecyclingBacterial ProteinsPetroleumPlastics

Identifiers

PMID28371373
PMCPMC5658625

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.