ArticleScientific reports2024
Coal-straw co-digestion-induced biogenic methane production: perspectives on microbial communities and associated metabolic pathways.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Recent progress on the biological degradation and solubilization of coal.Biodegradation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed the impacts of wheat straw as a cosubstrate on coal biocoverion into methane and the associated mechanism within methane metabolic pathways. Co-digestion of coal with varying wheat straw concentrations resulted in a remarkable (1246.05%) increase in methane yield compared to that of the control (CK). Moreover, microbial analysis revealed a uniform distribution of Methanosarcinaceae (51.14%) and Methanobacteriaceae (39.90%) in the co-digestion of coal and wheat straw (CWS1) at a ratio of 3:1 (w/w) compared to other treatments such as coal and wheat straw (CWS2) at a ratio of 3:0.5. In addition, Hungatieclostridiaceae and Rhodobacteriaceae were abundant in both co-digesters, whereas the bacterial communities in the CK group were significantly different and more abundant than those in the Peptostreptococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae groups. The key enzymes related to methanogenic metabolic pathways, including EC: 1.2.99.5 and EC: 2.1.1.86 (facilitating the conversion of CO
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.