↓ Skip to main content

Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer

Overview of attention for article published in The ISME Journal, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer
Published in
The ISME Journal, November 2015
DOI 10.1038/ismej.2015.139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas Storck, Bernardino Virdis, Damien J Batstone

Abstract

Interspecies electron transfer (IET) is important for many anaerobic processes, but is critically dependent on mode of transfer. In particular, direct IET (DIET) has been recently proposed as a metabolically advantageous mode compared with mediated IET (MIET) via hydrogen or formate. We analyse relative feasibility of these IET modes by modelling external limitations using a reaction-diffusion-electrochemical approach in a three-dimensional domain. For otherwise identical conditions, external electron transfer rates per cell pair (cp) are considerably higher for formate-MIET (317 × 10(3) e(-) cp(-1) s(-1)) compared with DIET (44.9 × 10(3) e(-) cp(-1) s(-1)) or hydrogen-MIET (5.24 × 10(3) e(-) cp(-1) s(-1)). MIET is limited by the mediator concentration gradient at which reactions are still thermodynamically feasible, whereas DIET is limited through redox cofactor (for example, cytochromes) activation losses. Model outcomes are sensitive to key parameters for external electron transfer including cofactor electron transfer rate constant and redox cofactor area, concentration or count per cell, but formate-MIET is generally more favourable for reasonable parameter ranges. Extending the analysis to multiple cells shows that the size of the network does not strongly influence relative or absolute favourability of IET modes. Similar electron transfer rates for formate-MIET and DIET can be achieved in our case with a slight (0.7 kJ mol(-1)) thermodynamic advantage for DIET. This indicates that close to thermodynamic feasibility, external limitations can be compensated for by improved metabolic efficiency when using direct electron transfer.The ISME Journal advance online publication, 6 November 2015; doi:10.1038/ismej.2015.139.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 173 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 26%
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 42 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 36 21%
Engineering 26 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Chemical Engineering 6 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 55 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2022.
All research outputs
#6,340,334
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from The ISME Journal
#2,220
of 3,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,340
of 297,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The ISME Journal
#42
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.