Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758752›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Investigating the degradation potential of microbial consortia for perfluorooctane sulfonate through a functional "top-down" screening approach.

Yu Liang, Anzhou Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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.

Yu LiangResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Anzhou MaResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0009-0003-5444-4010

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is a prominent perfluorinated compound commonly found in the environment, known to pose various risks to human health. However, the removal of PFOS presents significant challenges, primarily due to the limited discovery of bacteria capable of effectively degrading PFOS. Moreover, single degradation bacteria often encounter obstacles in individual cultivation and the breakdown of complex pollutants. In contrast, microbial consortia have shown promise in pollutant degradation. This study employed a continuous enrichment method, combined with multiple co-metabolic substrates, to investigate a microbial consortium with the potential for PFOS degradation. By employing this methodology, we effectively identified a microbial consortium that demonstrated the capacity to reduce PFOS when exposed to an optimal concentration of methanol. The consortium predominantly comprised of Hyphomicrobium species (46.7%) along with unclassified microorganisms (53.0%). Over a duration of 20 days, the PFOS concentration exhibited a notable decrease of 56.7% in comparison to the initial level, while considering the exclusion of adsorption effects. Furthermore, by comparing the predicted metabolic pathways of the microbial consortium with the genome of a known chloromethane-degrading bacterium, Hyphomicrobium sp. MC1, using the KEGG database, we observed distinct variations in the metabolic pathways, suggesting the potential role of the unclassified microorganisms. These findings underscore the potential effectiveness of a "top-down" functional microbial screening approach in the degradation of stubborn pollutants.

Indexed as

Alkanesulfonic AcidsBiodegradation, EnvironmentalFluorocarbonsMicrobial ConsortiaBacteriaMethanolAlkanesulfonic AcidsFluorocarbonsMethanolperfluorooctane sulfonic acid

Identifiers

PMID38758752
PMCPMC11101035

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.