Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30323265›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2019

Long-term succession in a coal seam microbiome during in situ biostimulation of coalbed-methane generation.

Sabrina Beckmann, Alison W S Luk, Maria-Luisa Gutierrez-Zamora, Nur Hazlin Hazrin Chong, Torsten Thomas, Matthew Lee, Michael Manefield

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabrina BeckmannSchool of Chemical Engineering, University of New South Wales, High Street, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alison W S LukCharles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Maria-Luisa Gutierrez-ZamoraCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, High Street, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nur Hazlin Hazrin ChongSchool of Biosciences and Biotechnology, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Torsten ThomasCentre for Marine Bio-Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, High Street, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9557-3001
Matthew LeeSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, High Street, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael ManefieldSchool of Chemical Engineering, University of New South Wales, High Street, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia. manefield@unsw.edu.au.
UNSW Sydney · AUNational University of Malaysia · MYThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the significance of biogenic methane generation in coal beds, there has never been a systematic long-term evaluation of the ecological response to biostimulation for enhanced methanogenesis in situ. Biostimulation tests in a gas-free coal seam were analysed over 1.5 years encompassing methane production, cell abundance, planktonic and surface associated community composition and chemical parameters of the coal formation water. Evidence is presented that sulfate reducing bacteria are energy limited whilst methanogenic archaea are nutrient limited. Methane production was highest in a nutrient amended well after an oxic preincubation phase to enhance coal biofragmentation (calcium peroxide amendment). Compound-specific isotope analyses indicated the predominance of acetoclastic methanogenesis. Acetoclastic methanogenic archaea of the Methanosaeta and Methanosarcina genera increased with methane concentration. Acetate was the main precursor for methanogenesis, however more acetate was consumed than methane produced in an acetate amended well. DNA stable isotope probing showed incorporation of

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAcetatesArchaeaCarbon IsotopesCoalGeobacterMethaneMethanosarcinaMethanosarcinaceaeOil and Gas FieldsSulfatesSulfur-Reducing BacteriaAcetatesCarbon IsotopesCoalMethaneSulfates

Identifiers

PMID30323265
PMCPMC6461797
OpenAlexW2897182914

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.