Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40702902›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental microbiology2025

Exploring Energy Conservation in Sulphate-Dependent Anaerobic Methane-Oxidising Consortia Through Metabolic Modelling.

Gordon Bowman, Zena Jensvold, Qusheng Jin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Gordon BowmanGeobiology Group, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5126-3924
Zena JensvoldGeobiology Group, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4783-4411
Qusheng JinGeobiology Group, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0808-2122

Funding

National Science Foundation EAR-1753436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) coupled with sulphate reduction (SR) is a crucial microbial process that mitigates methane emissions, a major contributor to climate change. However, the bioenergetics underlying this process remains poorly understood. Here, we present a metabolic model to quantify energy fluxes and conservation in AOM consortia by integrating enzyme-level thermodynamics and kinetics. Unlike previous models that impose artificial constraints on energy conservation kinetics and efficiency, our approach mechanistically predicts ATP yields and energy efficiencies. We show that both anaerobic methanotrophic archaea (ANME) and sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB) invest energy in substrate activation, synthesising ATP with comparable yields (0.23-0.24 mol ATP per mol methane or sulphate), while achieving remarkable thermodynamic efficiency (~60%). However, ANME exhibit a higher return on investment (ROI, 18%) than SRB (11%) due to more efficient substrate activation. These findings highlight fundamental bioenergetic constraints governing methane oxidation and SR in anoxic environments, enhancing our understanding of how microbial processes regulate methane fluxes in natural ecosystems. By providing a quantitative framework for microbial energy conservation, our study advances biogeochemical modelling and informs strategies for methane mitigation in marine sediments and other anaerobic environments critical to climate regulation.

Indexed as

ArchaeaBacteriaEnergy MetabolismMethaneMicrobial ConsortiaSulfatesAdenosine TriphosphateAnaerobiosisKineticsModels, BiologicalOxidation-ReductionThermodynamicsAdenosine TriphosphateMethaneSulfates

Identifiers

PMID40702902
PMCPMC12287890

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.