Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28952572›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2016

Metabolic Engineering Strategies for Co-Utilization of Carbon Sources in Microbes.

Yifei Wu, Xiaolin Shen, Qipeng Yuan, Yajun Yan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Two-species community design of lactic acid bacteria for optimal production of lactate.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Metabolic Profiles of Carbohydrates inFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Phototrophic Lactate Utilization byApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Yifei WuState Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China. hyf-141@163.com.
Xiaolin ShenState Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China. xiaolinshen731@gmail.com.
Qipeng YuanState Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China. yuanqp@mail.buct.edu.cn.
Yajun YanBioChemical Engineering Program, College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. yajunyan@uga.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9993-3016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Co-utilization of carbon sources in microbes is an important topic in metabolic engineering research. It is not only a way to reduce microbial production costs but also an attempt for either improving the yields of target products or decreasing the formation of byproducts. However, there are barriers in co-utilization of carbon sources in microbes, such as carbon catabolite repression. To overcome the barriers, different metabolic engineering strategies have been developed, such as inactivation of the phosphotransferase system and rewiring carbon assimilation pathways. This review summarizes the most recent developments of different strategies that support microbes to utilize two or more carbon sources simultaneously. The main content focuses on the co-utilization of glucose and pentoses, major sugars in lignocellulose.

Indexed as

co-utilizationlignocellulosic biomassmetabolic engineering strategies

Identifiers

PMID28952572
PMCPMC5597168

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.