Cited by 27Microbial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionAlgal biology and biofuel productionPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms

Engineering highly productive cyanobacteria towards carbon negative emissions technologies

Open access
Victoria, Angelo J, Astbury, Michael J, McCormick, Alistair J·2024·Current Opinion in Biotechnology

Abstract

Cyanobacteria are a diverse and ecologically important group of photosynthetic prokaryotes that contribute significantly to the global carbon cycle through the capture of CO2 as biomass. Cyanobacterial biotechnology could play a key role in a sustainable bioeconomy through negative emissions technologies (NETs), such as carbon sequestration or bioproduction. However, the primary issues of low productivities and high infrastructure costs currently limit the commercialisation of such applications. The isolation of several fast-growing strains and recent advancements in molecular biology tools now offer promising new avenues for improving yields, including metabolic engineering approaches guided by high-throughput screening and metabolic models. Furthermore, emerging research on engineering coculture communities could help to develop more robust culturing systems to support broader NET applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.copbio.2024.103141

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cyanobacteria offer net carbon-neutral or carbon-negative production potential that neither heterotrophic host can match.

    “and offering net carbon-neutral or carbon-negative production potential that neither heterotrophic host can match [15].”

    From Cyanobacteria as a Photosynthetic Chassis for Metabolic Pathway Engineering with Heterologous Gene Expression (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The paper’s opening summary (p. 1) says cyanobacterial biotechnology could support negative-emissions technologies, including bioproduction; the Introduction (p. 1) also describes carbon-neutral bioproduction in microalgal biorefineries. It does not establish that heterotrophic hosts cannot match this potential, so the comparative part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cyanobacteria grow more slowly (doubling times of 1.5-10 h) with a less mature toolkit than E. coli and S. cerevisiae.

    “Cyanobacteria grow more slowly (doubling times of 1.5–10 h) with a less mature toolkit”

    From Cyanobacteria as a Photosynthetic Chassis for Metabolic Pathway Engineering with Heterologous Gene Expression (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Omics technologies section (p. 6) describes one cyanobacterial strain, PCC 6803, as growing more slowly than E. coli. The strain overview (p. 2) reports approximately 2-hour doubling times for several fast-growing strains, but does not establish a general 1.5–10-hour range. The copy also does not make the claimed toolkit comparison with E. coli and S. cerevisiae. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cyanobacteria have relatively simple nutritional requirements compared to many heterotrophic microbial hosts; their growth can be maintained using light as an energy source in conjunction with carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic nutrients, eliminating the need for organic carbon substrates typically necessary for organisms such as Escherichia coli or yeast.

    “Cyanobacteria have relatively simple nutritional requirements compared to many heterotrophic microbial hosts. Their growth can be maintained using light as an energy source in conjunction with carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic nutrients, thereby eliminating the need for organic carbon substrates typically necessary for organisms such as Escherichia coli or yeast [15].”

    From Cyanobacteria as a Photosynthetic Chassis for Metabolic Pathway Engineering with Heterologous Gene Expression (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cyanobacteria uniquely fix CO2 directly using solar energy, eliminating organic carbon feedstock requirements entirely.

    “but uniquely fix CO2 directly using solar energy, eliminating organic carbon feedstock requirements entirely”

    From Cyanobacteria as a Photosynthetic Chassis for Metabolic Pathway Engineering with Heterologous Gene Expression (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The opening passage (p. 1) describes cyanobacteria as photosynthetic organisms that capture CO2 as biomass. The Introduction (p. 1) also identifies plants and algae as photoautotrophs, so it does not support the claim that cyanobacteria do this uniquely. The passages do not establish that organic carbon feedstock requirements are eliminated entirely. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Engineered cyanobacteria have potential to contribute to carbon sequestration and bioproduction, although low productivity and cultivation cost remain major barriers to large-scale deployment.

    “Recent discussions of cyanobacterial negative-emission technologies further highlight the potential of engineered cyanobacteria to contribute to carbon sequestration and bioproduction, although low productivity and cultivation cost remain major barriers to large-scale deployment [15].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. [In Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Edited by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press; 2023.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0958-1669(24)00077-6/sbref1)
  2. [3]3. [Fajardy M, Köberle A, Mac Dowell N, Fantuzzi A: BECCS deployment: a reality check . Grantham Institute; 2019.](http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0958-1669(24)00077-6/sbref3)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Victoria, A. J., Astbury, M. J., & McCormick, A. J.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
McCormick, Alistair J
Venue
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
87
Pages
103141
ISSN
0958-1669 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396840702
Cited by
27
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Biotechnology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/S020128/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Photosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Keywords
cyanobacteria, negative emissions technologies, carbon sequestration, metabolic engineering, high-throughput screening, metabolic modeling, bioeconomy, CO2 capture, bioproduction
MeSH terms
Cyanobacteria, Biotechnology, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Photosynthesis, Metabolic Engineering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review