ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
How the 'Aerobic/Anaerobic Glycolysis' Meme Formed a 'Habit of Mind' Which Impedes Progress in the Field of Brain Energy Metabolism.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The crosstalk between RNA m6A modification and protein lactylation: emerging insights into tumor progression.Oncogene · 2026Review
- A bioenergetic understanding of "aerobic glycolysis".Communications biology · 2026Review
- Article
- Metabolic interactions in the brain: the crucial roles of neurons, astrocytes, and microglia in health and disease.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Where Is the Oxygen? The Mirage of Non-Oxidative Glucose Consumption During Brain Activity.NeuroSci · 2025Review
- A Bird's-Eye View of Glycolytic Upregulation in Activated Brain: The Major Fate of Lactate Is Release From Activated Tissue, Not Shuttling to Nearby Neurons.Journal of neurochemistry · 2025Review
- The Feud over Lactate and Its Role in Brain Energy Metabolism: An Unnecessary Burden on Research and the Scientists Who Practice It.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Glioma neuron symbiosis: a hypothesis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The division of glycolysis into two separate pathways, aerobic and anaerobic, depending on the presence or absence of oxygen, respectively, was formulated over eight decades ago. The former ends with pyruvate, while the latter ends with lactate. Today, this division is confusing and misleading as research over the past 35 years clearly has demonstrated that glycolysis ends with lactate not only in cancerous cells but also in healthy tissues and cells. The present essay offers a review of the history of said division and the more recent knowledge that has been gained about glycolysis and its end-product, lactate. Then, it presents arguments in an attempt to explain why separating glycolysis into aerobic and anaerobic pathways persists among scientists, clinicians and teachers alike, despite convincing evidence that such division is not only wrong scientifically but also hinders progress in the field of energy metabolism.
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.