Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer

Open access
Storck, Tomas, Virdis, Bernardino, Batstone, Damien J·2016·The ISME Journal

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 × 103 e− cp−1 s−1) compared with DIET (44.9 × 103 e− cp−1 s−1) or hydrogen-MIET (5.24 × 103 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.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/ismej.2015.139

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Storck, T., Virdis, B., & Batstone, D. J.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2015-11-06
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
621-631
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2193003553
Cited by
239
References
2
FWCI
6.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2015.139
The paper
Storck, T., Virdis, B., & Batstone, D. J. (2016). Modelling extracellular limitations for mediated versus direct interspecies electron transfer. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.139

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.