Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40857350›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

Mixotrophy for carbon-conserving waste upcycling.

Michael Weldon, Christian Euler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael WeldonDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0006-5075-841X
Christian EulerDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8045-2343

Funding

National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern chemical manufacturing, on which human quality of life depends, is unsustainable; alternative production routes must be developed. Electrochemical and biological processes offer promise for upgrading waste streams, including recalcitrant carbon dioxide and plastic-derived wastes. However, the inherent heterogeneity and high energy requirements of upcycling the chemical endpoints of the "take-make-waste" economy remain challenging. Cupriavidus necator is an emergent catalyst for complex feedstock valorization because of its extreme metabolic flexibility, which allows it to utilize a wide array of substrates, and its ability to use carbon dioxide via the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. C. necator natively oxidizes hydrogen to power carbon utilization, but its flexibility offers an as-yet unexplored opportunity to couple waste stream oxidation with carbon dioxide utilization instead, potentially enabling carbon conservative waste upcycling. Here, we uncover the constraints on carbon conservative chemical transformation using C. necator as a model. We systematically examine the carbon yield and thermodynamic feasibility of mixotrophic scenarios combining waste-derived carbon sources with hydrogen oxidation to power carbon reassimilation. Then, we evaluate carbon-carbon mixotrophic scenarios, with one carbon source providing electrons in place of hydrogen oxidation. We show that both hydrogen and ethylene glycol are feasible electron sources to drive carbon-neutral or carbon-negative mixotrophic upgrading of waste streams such as acetate or butyrate. In contrast, we find that carbon conservation is likely infeasible for most other waste-derived carbon sources. This work provides a roadmap to establishing novel C. necator strains capable of carbon efficient waste upcycling.

Indexed as

CarbonCarbon DioxideComputational BiologyHydrogenOxidation-ReductionThermodynamicsCarbonCarbon DioxideHydrogen

Identifiers

PMID40857350
PMCPMC12407552

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.