ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2019
Response to starvation and microbial community composition in microbial fuel cells enriched on different electron donors.
Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolic Design Patterns for a Regenerative Architecture.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- The combined effect of a carbon sleeve and carbon veil as an anode electrode in enhancing microbial fuel cell performance.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Effect of anode material and dispersal limitation on the performance and biofilm community in microbial electrolysis cells.Biofilm · 2023Article
- Enhanced leachate phytodetoxification test combined with plants and rhizobacteria bioaugmentation.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Evidence of competition between electrogens shaping electroactive microbial communities in microbial electrolysis cells.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Isolation and Polyphasic Characterization ofMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Hill-based dissimilarity indices and null models for analysis of microbial community assembly.Microbiome · 2020Article
- Response to starvation and microbial community composition in microbial fuel cells enriched on different electron donors.Microbial biotechnology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In microbial fuel cells (MFCs), microorganisms generate electrical current by oxidizing organic compounds. MFCs operated with different electron donors harbour different microbial communities, and it is unknown how that affects their response to starvation. We analysed the microbial communities in acetate- and glucose-fed MFCs and compared their responses to 10 days starvation periods. Each starvation period resulted in a 4.2 ± 1.4% reduction in electrical current in the acetate-fed MFCs and a 10.8 ± 3.9% reduction in the glucose-fed MFCs. When feed was resumed, the acetate-fed MFCs recovered immediately, whereas the glucose-fed MFCs required 1 day to recover. The acetate-fed bioanodes were dominated by Desulfuromonas spp. converting acetate into electrical current. The glucose-fed bioanodes were dominated by Trichococcus sp., functioning as a fermenter, and a member of Desulfuromonadales, using the fermentation products to generate electrical current. Suspended biomass and biofilm growing on non-conductive regions within the MFCs had different community composition than the bioanodes. However, null models showed that homogenizing dispersal of microorganisms within the MFCs affected the community composition, and in the glucose-fed MFCs, the Trichococcus sp. was abundant in all locations. The different responses to starvation can be explained by the more complex pathway requiring microbial interactions to convert glucose into electrical current.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.