Skip to main content
Microbes and Environments logoLink to Microbes and Environments
. 2015 May 23;30(2):133–139. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME15028

Biotechnological Aspects of Microbial Extracellular Electron Transfer

Souichiro Kato 1,2,3,*
PMCID: PMC4462922  PMID: 26004795

Abstract

Extracellular electron transfer (EET) is a type of microbial respiration that enables electron transfer between microbial cells and extracellular solid materials, including naturally-occurring metal compounds and artificial electrodes. Microorganisms harboring EET abilities have received considerable attention for their various biotechnological applications, in addition to their contribution to global energy and material cycles. In this review, current knowledge on microbial EET and its application to diverse biotechnologies, including the bioremediation of toxic metals, recovery of useful metals, biocorrosion, and microbial electrochemical systems (microbial fuel cells and microbial electrosynthesis), were introduced. Two potential biotechnologies based on microbial EET, namely the electrochemical control of microbial metabolism and electrochemical stimulation of microbial symbiotic reactions (electric syntrophy), were also discussed.

Keywords: extracellular electron transfer, microbial electrochemical cells, biocorrosion, bioremediation, electric syntrophy


Living organisms must constantly acquire energy to continue living and proliferating. They acquire energy through respiration, photosynthesis, or fermentation, all of which are fundamentally based on the oxidation and reduction of chemical compounds and concomitant electron transfer reactions. Most living organisms conduct redox reactions inside of their cells through the incorporation of soluble or gaseous chemical compounds. In contrast, some microorganisms have the ability to acquire energy by transferring electrons to or from extracellular solid materials. Microorganisms that have the ability to utilize solid materials for energy metabolism have a competitive advantage over other organisms, especially in environments in which an electron source or sink availability is limited. Electron exchange reactions between microbial cells and solid materials, which are collectively referred to as “extracellular electron transfer (EET)”, have attracted considerable attention in the fields of microbial physiology, microbial ecology, and biotechnology. This review discussed current knowledge on microbial EET and summarized recent advances in its biotechnological application.

Mechanisms of microbial EET

EET is defined as a microbial metabolic process that enables electron transfer between microbial cells and extracellular solid materials and is a type of microbial respiration. Respiration converts redox potential differences between the oxidation and reduction of chemical compounds into a bioavailable form of energy, generally ATP. Fig. 1A shows a schematic model of oxygen respiration that is found in the majority of living organisms. Most living organisms, including human beings, only utilize a combination of organic compounds and oxygen as an electron donor and acceptor, respectively. On the other hand, energy metabolism with diverse substances acting as the electron acceptors or donors has been detected in microorganisms. Particular microorganisms utilize a wide range of reduced (e.g., H2, CH4, sulfides, and ammonia) and oxidized (e.g., nitrate, sulfate, and CO2) inorganic compounds as electron donors and acceptors, respectively. Other microorganisms have ability to utilize solid materials, such as minerals and electrodes, as substrates for respiration, through a process that is specifically referred to as EET. However, special molecular mechanisms are required for EET reactions because microorganisms cannot incorporate such solid materials into their cells.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Schematic diagrams of (A) oxygen respiration and (B) microbial extracellular electron transfer.

Microbial EET has been roughly classified into two different mechanisms: direct and indirect EET. In direct EET, microorganisms attach to solid surfaces, to or from which they directly transfer electrons. The molecular mechanisms for direct EET have been intensively investigated in some model organisms, namely, iron-reducing bacteria Geobacter sulfurreducens and Shewanella oneidensis, and the ironoxidizing bacterium Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans (8, 86, 99). Redox-active proteins, mainly c-type cytochromes, play an important role in direct EET. Electron transfer from inner to outer cell membranes via electron hopping through multiple redox-active proteins connects microbial respiratory chains and external surfaces (Fig. 1B). Furthermore, G. sulfurreducens and S. oneidensis were previously reported to produce a conductive filamentous apparatus (pili and outer membrane extensions, respectively) that enabled cells to transfer electrons to distantly located solid materials (22, 75, 78).

Redox-active low-molecular compounds, referred to as electron mediators, function as electron carriers between microbial cells and solid materials. Electron mediators reduced (or oxidized) by microorganisms diffuse to solid surfaces and donate (or accept) electrons. Oxidized (or reduced) mediators return to the inside of cells and are again utilized as respiratory substrates. Indirect EET often functions as the dominant type of metabolism in engineered environments (76, 98). Some microorganisms synthesize and excrete small molecules that function as electron mediators, including phenazine compounds and flavin derivatives, which are considered to contribute to indirect EET (60, 76). In contrast, recent studies demonstrated that extracellularly excreted flavin compounds associated with outer membrane cytochromes and accelerated direct EET to solid materials (72, 73). Several reviews have provided more in-depth discussions on the mechanisms of direct and indirect EET (54, 80, 86, 90, 98)

Biotechnologies based on microbial EET

Bioremediation of toxic metals

Bioremediation is a technology that involves the use of living organisms to degrade, remove, or detoxify pollutants from contaminated environments. Along with petroleum hydrocarbons and halogenated compounds, toxic metals (and metalloids) are also the targets of bioremediation. In addition to methods based on biosorption and bioaccumulation (20, 41), technologies that focus on the reduction and oxidation of metal compounds via microbial EET have been attracting considerable attention due to their application to the microbiological remediation of toxic metals (47, 55). Bioremediation technologies based on microbial reduction and oxidation have been applied to a number of toxic metal(loid)s. For example, the detoxification of chromium by the reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) (95), the insolubilization of uranium by the reduction of U(VI) to U(III) (30, 53), the abatement of the adsorptive capacity of arsenic compounds by the reduction of arsenate (AsO43−) to arsenite (AsO33−) (103), and the biomineralization of elemental selenium (Se0) via the reduction of selenate (SeO42−) and selenite (SeO32−) (88) have been reported previously. Furthermore, the detoxification of toxic metals in wastewater by microbial redox reactions in microbial electrochemical systems (discussed below) with the aid of external electrical power, including the reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) by biocathode microbial communities, has recently been undertaken (96).

Recovery of useful metals

Technologies for the recovery of useful metals have also been developed using microbial reduction and oxidation. Bioleaching is a metal refining technology that elutes useful metals from solid minerals using microbial activities (93). Bioleaching is a long-standing technology and has led to practical applications. The foremost target of bioleaching is the recovery of Cu from copper iron sulfide minerals including chalcopyrite. Acidophilic bacteria such as Acidithiobacillus spp., which have the ability to oxidize Fe(II) and sulfur in chalcopyrite by EET, play important roles in bioleaching. In addition to the dissolution effects of acidification through the production of sulfuric acid, the elution of Cu is accelerated due to the oxidation of copper by Fe(III), which is generated by a microbial oxidation reaction. Furthermore, the recovery of precious metals from waste materials (e.g., catalysts, batteries, and electronic parts) using acidophilic iron- and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria has also been investigated (7, 29).

In contrast, many studies have examined the recovery of useful metals based on microbial metal reduction. Microorganisms with EET abilities, including Shewanella spp., Geobacter spp., and Desulfovibrio spp., have been shown to reduce a number of precious metals, including Pt(IV), Pd(II), Rd(III), Ag(I), and Au(III), with similar oxidation-reduction potentials to Fe(III) and Mn(IV) (48). These bacteria reduced these precious metal ions to their respective elemental metals and accumulated metal nanoparticles on their cell surfaces or in their periplasmic spaces (33, 44, 46), making the recovery of precious metals easier. Furthermore, a previous study reported that some metal nanoparticles generated by microbial reduction had high catalytic activities (14). These findings suggest that, in addition to the recovery of precious metals, microbial EET is applicable to the manufacturing technologies of nanomaterials.

Biocorrosion

The corrosion of iron is an electrochemical process that involves the oxidation of metallic iron (Fe[0]) to Fe(II) and reduction of external electron acceptors. This electron-consuming reaction consists of oxygen reduction under oxic conditions and proton reduction (H2 evolution) under anoxic conditions. Since the H2 evolution reaction on iron surfaces is typically a particularly slow reaction, iron corrosion in anoxic environments is not considered to be a serious problem. However, iron corrosion has been often reported in anoxic environments, and in most cases, is thought to be mediated by microbial metabolic activities, including microbial EET reactions (3, 24, 94). Dinh et al. isolated novel sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and methanogenic archaea from marine sediment with Fe(0) as the sole electron donor (16). These isolates reduced sulfate and produced methane with the concomitant oxidation of Fe(0), respectively, markedly faster than abiotic H2 production from Fe(0). The same group demonstrated that the iron-corroding SRB appeared to directly uptake electrons from Fe(0) via EET rather than consuming abiotically generated H2 (17, 18, 92). Some strains of methanogenic archaea that have similar iron-corroding activities were also isolated from oil-storage tanks by another research group (65, 91). In addition to SRB and methanogens, a recent study reported that certain acetogenic bacteria appeared to have the ability to induce iron corrosion in anoxic environments (58). Our group isolated acetogenic strains that grew with Fe(0) as the sole electron donor and enhanced iron corrosion, while authentic H2- scavenging acetogens did not show such activities (39). Furthermore, Iino et al. reported that a non-hydrogenotrophic strain belonging to the phylum Bacteroidetes had the ability to induce biocorrosion under nitrate-reducing conditions (28). Although the molecular mechanisms underlying electron transfer from metallic iron to microbial cells currently remain unknown, future investigations on the physiology and ecology of these biocorroding microorganisms may lead to the development of novel technologies to prevent biocorrosion in anoxic environments.

Microbial fuel cells

In addition to the oxidation and reduction of metal compounds, certain microorganisms have the ability to utilize conductive materials (e.g., graphite electrodes) as the electron donor or acceptor of respiration (6, 23, 43). The ability of microorganisms to transfer electrons to or from electrode materials may be exploited to provide technologies using diverse bioelectrochemical systems, such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and microbial electrosynthesis (discussed in the next section). MFCs are one of the most extensively investigated bioelectrochemical systems in which chemical energy stored in a substrate (e.g., waste organics) is directly converted into electrical energy through microbial metabolism (49, 50, 97). MFCs have advantages over fuel cells: 1) diverse organic matter including waste compounds may be utilized as fuel, 2) MFCs operate stably, even at ordinary temperatures, and 3) the electrode catalysts, namely microorganisms, are cheap and self-propagating. Although the performance of MFC has been largely improved by modifications to reactor configurations, electrode materials, and cathode catalysts (52, 64, 105), the electricity output of MFC is markedly lower than that of chemical fuel cells. Hence, most studies on MFCs target the development of low-energy intensive wastewater treatment systems. Further practical research to solve some critical issues, including enlargement of the reactor scale, long-term durability, and the relatively high cost of electrode materials, is required for the commercialization of MFC-based wastewater treatment systems (25, 51, 52). In addition to wastewater treatment systems, the application of MFCs to portable batteries (27, 79), remote batteries in marine and lake sediments (4), and electricity generation in plant rhizospheres (e.g., rice paddy fields) (15, 31) has also been investigated.

Microbial electrosynthesis

Microbial electrosynthesis is a biotechnology based on microbial energy conversion from electricity to chemical fuels (56, 77, 82). The utilization of microbial CO2 fixation activities for the synthesis of chemical fuels has advantages over technologies based on inorganic catalysts because the production of multi-carbon compounds from CO2 with inorganic catalysts is extremely difficult. Acetogenic bacteria are expected as the “biocatalysts” to produce chemical fuels from CO2 with the input of electrical energies. Nevin et al. reported that some acetogenic bacteria, which generally acquire energy through the generation of acetate from CO2 with H2 as the electron donor, had the ability to convert electrical energy into multi-carbon chemicals (acetate and a small amount of 2-oxobutyrate) under conditions with poised electrodes as the sole electron donor (68, 69). In addition to acetogenic bacteria, the microbial production of H2 and CH4 via the reduction of protons and CO2, respectively, with cathode electrodes as the electron sources also represents a prospective new biological energy conversion system (11, 84). While the molecular mechanisms of electron transfer from electrodes to microbial cells remain largely unknown (81), many research projects to improve microbial electrosynthesis, including the metabolic engineering of acetogenic bacteria (2) and improvements to cathode materials (104), are now ongoing.

Electrochemical control of microbial metabolism

Shifts in the cellular redox balance largely affect microbial gene expression and metabolism. The artificial control of microbial metabolism by electrochemical alterations to the cellular redox balance has been extensively investigated since the 1970s. The electrochemical control of microbial metabolism has considerable advantages over other methodologies because the continuous and/or intermittent adjustment of microbial metabolism without gene modifications or the supplementation of chemical inducers is theoretically possible. Most of these studies utilized artificial mediator compounds, including neutral red and methyl viologen, to achieve electrical connections between electrodes and microbial cells, and demonstrated that it was possible to enhance the production of fuel compounds and amino acids by supplying reducing equivalents from external electrical power sources to fermentative microorganisms (26, 42, 74). However, the practical uses of such artificial mediators were hampered by their cost, stability, and cytotoxicity.

Recent studies proposed two different methodologies to overcome mediator issues. The first one is the electrical control of metabolism by microorganisms that innately possess EET abilities. Previous studies reported that microorganisms with EET abilities, including Geobacter spp. and Shewanella spp., altered their gene expression and metabolic fluxes depending on shifts in electrode potentials (61, 62). Flynn et al. showed that the conversion of glycerol to ethanol by S. oneidensis was accelerated by altering the anode potential (19). Steinbusch et al. demonstrated that the production of ethanol via the reduction of acetate by microbial communities enriched on anodic electrodes of MFC may also be enhanced by electrochemical control (87).

Another methodology is the development of biocompatible electron mediators. The utilization of mediator compounds with low cytotoxicity enables the electrochemical control of microorganisms known to have abilities in the bioproduction of useful chemicals. Coman et al. developed flexible osmium redox polymers to achieve efficient electric communication between electrodes and diverse microorganisms, including the Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis (12). Our research group newly synthesized electron-mediating co-polymers consisting of an amphipathic phospholipid-like domain and redox-active vinylferrocene domain, which enabled electron transfer between electrodes and diverse microorganisms, including Escherichia coli and Lactobacilli, with low cytotoxicity (70). Our group also reported the enhancement of polyhydroxybutyrate production by Ralstonia eutropha (71) and electrochemical control of circadian rhythms of Synechococcus elongates (57) using the biocompatible redox polymers. The further development of new electron mediators with low cost, low cytotoxicity, and superior electron transfer abilities will aid in the practical application of EET-based enhancements to the bioproduction of useful chemicals.

Electric syntrophy: electrochemical stimulation of microbial symbiotic reactions

Some important microbiological processes proceed via the cooperation of multiple microbial species through energy exchanges. This type of microbial symbiosis is specifically termed syntrophy. Small molecules such as organics, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and H2 generally function as energy carriers (Fig. 2A). In addition, interspecies energy exchange is mediated by electric currents flowing through conductive solid materials in the recently found syntrophic interaction, which is specifically termed electric syntrophy or direct interspecies electron transfer (Fig. 2B). Electric syntrophy requires “electrical wires” that connect the metabolism of two different microbial cells. Summers et al. demonstrated that conductive pili produced by the microorganisms themselves functioned as wires that electrically connected the respiratory metabolism of G. metallireducens and G. sulfurreducens (89). On the other hand, our group expected naturally occurring conductive iron oxide minerals (e.g., magnetite) to function as wires for electric syntrophy, based on the knowledge that some electricity-generating bacteria have the ability to exchange electrons with conductive iron oxide minerals (34, 38, 67). Our group demonstrated electric syntrophy based on conductive iron oxides using a model microbial consortium consisting of two EET-harboring bacterial species, namely G. sulfurreducens and Thiobacillus denitrificans (36).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Schematic diagrams of (A) H2-dependent syntrophic methanogenesis and (B) methanogenesis based on electric syntrophy.

Electric syntrophy has received considerable attention for its application to various biotechnologies, including the enhancement of known microbial syntrophic processes and design of novel microbial syntrophic reactions. One of the most intensively studied processes is the enhancement of microbial methanogenesis, which has already been utilized for energy-saving waste (water) treatment processes. Microbial methanogenesis from organic compounds requires the cooperation of multiple microbial species, in which the syntrophic reactions of organic acid-oxidizing bacteria and hydrogenotrophic methanogenic archaea often become the rate-limiting step (35, 85). This type of syntrophic reaction is generally mediated by interspecies electron transfer with H2 as the electron carrier (Fig. 2A). Our group demonstrated that the supplementation of conductive iron oxide particles induced electric syntrophy and enhanced methanogenic reactions in microbial communities derived from rice paddy field soil (37) and a thermophilic methane-fermenting reactor (102). Other research groups reported enhancements to methanogenesis through electric syntrophy via conductive iron oxides (13), graphite (10, 45), biochar (9), and microbial nanowires (66, 83). Furthermore, Aulenta et al. showed that conductive iron oxides accelerated the microbial reductive dechlorination of trichloroethene by promoting interspecies electron transfer processes (1), suggesting that the stimulation of microbial syntrophy has potential in the field of bioremediation. Further investigations on the microbial physiology of electric syntrophy and development of low-cost materials with high conductivity and high biocompatibility will shed light on the applicational use of electric syntrophy.

Concluding remarks

Microbial EET and its possible applications were summarized in this review. Microbial EET has been intensively studied in limited model species belonging to Proteobacteria, namely, species in the genus Geobacter, Shewanella, and Acidithiobacillus. However, recent studies demonstrated that phylogenetically more diverse microorganisms, including Gram-positive bacteria (e.g., Firmicutes), Bacteroidetes, Cloroflexi, and Archaea, exhibited EET abilities (5, 21, 40, 59, 100, 101). Furthermore, a genome sequence analysis on diverse microbial species and metagenomics analysis on environmental samples revealed that various microorganisms, including methane-oxidizing bacteria (32) and microorganisms in anaerobic methane-oxidizing consortia (63), encoded genes for the outer membrane c-type cytochromes required for EET reactions. These findings indicate that EET is a microbial trait that is more widespread among diverse microbial clades than was initially thought. Research on microbial EET will be of great importance for understanding global materials and energy cycles, in addition to contributing to the development of new biotechnologies.

Acknowledgements

Some of the important work introduced in this review was carried out in the ERATO Hashimoto Light Energy Conversion System Project (Japan Science and Technology Agency). We thank Dr. Mia Terashima for her critical reading of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Aulenta F, Rossetti S, Amalfitano S, Majone M, Tandoi V. Conductive magnetite nanoparticles accelerate the microbial reductive dechlorination of trichloroethene by promoting interspecies electron transfer processes. ChemSusChem. 2013;6:433–436. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201200748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Banerjee A, Leang C, Ueki T, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Lactose-inducible system for metabolic engineering of Clostridium ljungdahlii. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:2410–2416. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03666-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Beech IB, Sunner J. Biocorrosion: towards understanding interactions between biofilms and metals. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2004;15:181–186. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2004.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bond DR, Holmes DE, Tender LM, Lovley DR. Electrode-reducing microorganisms that harvest energy from marine sediments. Science. 2002;295:483–485. doi: 10.1126/science.1066771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bond DR, Lovley DR. Reduction of Fe(III) oxide by methanogens in the presence and absence of extracellular quinones. Environ Microbiol. 2002;4:115–124. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00279.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bond DR, Lovley DR. Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached to electrodes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:1548–1555. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.3.1548-1555.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brandl H, Bosshard R, Wegmann M. Computer-munching microbes: metal leaching from electronic scrap by bacteria and fungi. Hydrometallurgy. 2001;59:319–326. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Castelle C, Guiral M, Malarte G, Ledgham F, Leroy G, Brugna M, Giudici-Orticoni MT. A new iron-oxidizing/ O2-reducing supercomplex spanning both inner and outer membranes, isolated from the extreme acidophile Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:25803–25811. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M802496200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen S, Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Malvankar NS, Liu F, Fan W, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Promoting interspecies electron transfer with biochar. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5019. doi: 10.1038/srep05019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chen S, Rotaru AE, Liu F, Philips J, Woodard TL, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Carbon cloth stimulates direct interspecies electron transfer in syntrophic co-cultures. Bioresour Technol. 2014;173:82–86. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cheng S, Xing D, Call DF, Logan BE. Direct biological conversion of electrical current into methane by electromethanogenesis. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;15:3953–3958. doi: 10.1021/es803531g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coman V, Gustavsson T, Finkelsteinas A, von Wachenfeldt C, Hägerhäll C, Gorton L. Electrical wiring of live, metabolically enhanced Bacillus subtilis cells with flexible osmium-redox polymers. J Am Chem Soc. 2009;131:16171–16176. doi: 10.1021/ja905442a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cruz Viggi C, Rossetti S, Fazi S, Paiano P, Majone M, Aulenta F. Magnetite particles triggering a faster and more robust syntrophic pathway of methanogenic propionate degradation. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:7536–7343. doi: 10.1021/es5016789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.De Corte S, Hennebel T, De Gusseme B, Verstraete W, Boon N. Bio-palladium: from metal recovery to catalytic applications. Microb Biotechnol. 2012;5:5–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2011.00265.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Deng H, Chen Z, Zhao F. Energy from plants and microorganisms: progress in plant-microbial fuel cells. Chem Sus Chem. 2012;5:1006–1011. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201100257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dinh HT, Kuever J, Mussmann M, Hassel AW, Stratmann M, Widdel F. Iron corrosion by novel anaerobic microorganisms. Nature. 2004;427:829–832. doi: 10.1038/nature02321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Enning D, Venzlaff H, Garrelfs J, Dinh HT, Meyer V, Mayrhofer K, Hassel AW, Stratmann M, Widdel F. Marine sulfate-reducing bacteria cause serious corrosion of iron under electroconductive biogenic mineral crust. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:1772–1787. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02778.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Enning D, Garrelfs J. Corrosion of iron by sulfate-reducing bacteria: new views of an old problem. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:1226–1236. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02848-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Flynn JM, Ross DE, Hunt KA, Bond DR, Gralnick JA. Enabling unbalanced fermentations by using engineered electrode-interfaced bacteria. mBio. 2010;1:e00190-10. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00190-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fomina M, Gadd GM. Biosorption: current perspectives on concept, definition and application. Bioresour Technol. 2014;160:3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gavrilov SN, Lloyd JR, Kostrikina NA, Slobodkin AI. Physiological mechanisms for dissimilatory reduction of poorly crystalline Fe(III) oxide by a thermophilic gram-positive bacterium Carboxydothermus ferrireducens. Geomicrobiol J. 2012;29:804–819. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gorby YA, Yanina S, McLean JS, et al. Electrically conductive bacterial nanowires produced by Shewanella oneidensis strain MR-1 and other microorganisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:11358–11363. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604517103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gregory KB, Bond DR, Lovley DR. Graphite electrodes as electron donors for anaerobic respiration. Environ Microbiol. 2004;6:596–604. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00593.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hamilton WA. Microbially influenced corrosion as a model system for the study of metal microbe interactions: a unifying electron transfer hypothesis. Biofouling. 2003;19:65–76. doi: 10.1080/0892701021000041078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Heidrich ES, Edwards SR, Dolfing J, Cotterill SE, Curtis TP. Performance of a pilot scale microbial electrolysis cell fed on domestic wastewater at ambient temperatures for a 12 month period. Bioresour Technol. 2014;173:87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hongo M, Iwahara M. Electrochemical studies on fermentation. I. Application of electro-energizing method to L-glutamic acid fermentation. Agric Biol Chem. 1979;43:2075–2081. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ieropoulos IA, Greenman J, Melhuish C, Horsfield I. Microbial fuel cells for robotics: energy autonomy through artificial symbiosis. ChemSusChem. 2012;5:1020–1026. doi: 10.1002/cssc.201200283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Iino T, Ito K, Wakai S, Tsurumaru H, Ohkuma M, Harayama S. Iron corrosion induced by nonhydrogenotrophic nitrate-reducing Prolixibacter sp. strain MIC1-1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:1839–1846. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03741-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ilyas S, Anwar MA, Niazi SB, Ghauri MA. Bioleaching of metals from electronic scrap by moderately thermophilic acidophilic bacteria. Hydrometallurgy. 2007;88:180–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jiang S, Hur HG. Effects of the anaerobic respiration of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 on the stability of extracellular U(VI) nanofibers. Microbes Environ. 2013;28:312–315. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME12149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kaku N, Yonezawa N, Kodama Y, Watanabe K. Plant/ microbe cooperation for electricity generation in a rice paddy field. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;79:43–49. doi: 10.1007/s00253-008-1410-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Karlsen OA, Lillehaug JR, Jensen HB. The presence of multiple c-type cytochromes at the surface of the methanotrophic bacterium Methylococcus capsulatus (Bath) is regulated by copper. Mol Microbiol. 2008;70:15–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06380.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kashefi K, Tor JM, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Reductive precipitation of gold by dissimlatory Fe(III)-reducing Bacteria and Archaea. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:3275–3279. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.3275-3279.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kato S, Nakamura R, Kai F, Watanabe K, Hashimoto K. Respiratory interactions of soil bacteria with (semi)conductive iron-oxide minerals. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:3114–3123. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kato S, Watanabe K. Ecological and evolutionary interactions in syntrophic methanogenic consortia. Microbes Environ. 2010;25:145–151. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.me10122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K. Microbial interspecies electron transfer via electric currents through conductive minerals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:10042–10046. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1117592109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K. Methanogenesis facilitated by electric syntrophy via (semi)conductive iron-oxide minerals. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:1646–1654. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02611.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K. Iron-oxide minerals affect extracellular electron-transfer paths of Geobacter spp. Microbes Environ. 2013;28:141–148. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME12161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kato S, Yumoto I, Kamagata Y. Isolation of acetogenic bacteria that induce biocorrosion by utilizing metallic iron as the sole electron donor. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:67–73. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02767-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kawaichi S, Ito N, Kamikawa R, Sugawara T, Yoshida T, Sako Y. Ardenticatena maritima gen. nov., sp. nov., a ferric iron- and nitrate-reducing bacterium of the phylum ‘Chloroflexi’ isolated from an iron-rich coastal hydrothermal field, and description of Ardenticatenia classis nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013;63:2992–3002. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.046532-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kikuchi T, Tanaka S. Biological removal and recovery of toxic heavy metals in water environment. Crit Rev Env Sci Technol. 2012;42:1007–1057. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kim TS, Kim BH. Electron flow shift in Clostridium acetobutylicum fermentation by electrochemically introduced reducing equivalent. Biotechnol Lett. 1988;10:123–128. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kim HJ, Park HS, Hyun MS, Chang IS, Kim M, Kim BH. A mediator-less microbial fuel cell using a metal reducing bacterium, Shewanella putrefaciens. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2002;30:145–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Konishi Y, Ohno K, Saitoh N, Nomura T, Nagamine S, Hishida H, Takahashi Y, Uruga T. Bioreductive deposition of platinum nanoparticles on the bacterium Shewanella algae. J Biotechnol. 2007;128:648–653. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2006.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Liu F, Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Malvankar NS, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Promoting direct interspecies electron transfer with activated carbon. Energy Environ Sci. 2012;5:8982–8989. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lloyd JR, Yong P, Macaskie LE. Enzymatic recovery of elemental palladium by using sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:4607–4609. doi: 10.1128/aem.64.11.4607-4609.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lloyd JR, Lovley DR. Microbial detoxification of metals and radionuclides. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2001;12:248–253. doi: 10.1016/s0958-1669(00)00207-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lloyd JR. Microbial reduction of metals and radionuclides. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2003;27:411–425. doi: 10.1016/S0168-6445(03)00044-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Logan BE, Hamelers B, Rozendal P, Schröder U, Keller J, Freguia S, Aelterman P, Verstraete W, Rabaey K. Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:5181–5192. doi: 10.1021/es0605016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Logan BE. Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:375–381. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Logan BE. Scaling up microbial fuel cells and other bioelectrochemical systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;85:1665–1671. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2378-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Logan BE, Rabaey K. Conversion of wastes into bioelectricity and chemicals by using microbial electrochemical technologies. Science. 2012;337:686–690. doi: 10.1126/science.1217412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lovley DR, Coates JD. Bioremediation of metal contamination. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1997;8:285–289. doi: 10.1016/s0958-1669(97)80005-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lovley DR. The microbe electric: conversion of organic matter to electricity. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008;19:564–571. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2008.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lovley DR, Ueki T, Zhang T, et al. Geobacter: the microbe electric’s physiology, ecology, and practical applications. Adv Microb Physiol. 2011;59:1–100. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-387661-4.00004-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lovley DR, Nevin KP. Electrobiocommodities: powering microbial production of fuels and commodity chemicals from carbon dioxide with electricity. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2013;24:385–390. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lu Y, Nishio K, Matsuda S, et al. Regulation of the cyanobacterial circadian clock by electrochemically controlled extracellular electron transfer. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2014;53:2208–2211. doi: 10.1002/anie.201309560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mand J, Park HS, Jack TR, Voordouw G. The role of acetogens in microbially influenced corrosion of steel. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:268. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mardanov AV, Slododkina GB, Slobodkin AI, Beletsky AV, Gavrilov SN, Kublanov IV, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA, Skryabin KG, Ravin NV. The genome of Geoglobus acetivorans: Fe(III) reduction, acetate utilization, autotrophic growth and degradation of aromatic compounds in a hyperthermophilic archaeon. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:1003–1012. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02705-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Marsili E, Baron DB, Shikhare ID, Coursolle D, Gralnick JA, Bond DR. Shewanella secretes flavins that mediate extracellular electron transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:3968–3973. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710525105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Matsuda S, Liu H, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Nakanishi S. Negative faradaic resistance in extracellular electron transfer by anode-respiring Geobacter sulfurreducens cells. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:10163–10169. doi: 10.1021/es200834b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Matsuda S, Liu H, Kouzuma A, Watanabe K, Hashimoto K, Nakanishi S. Electrochemical gating of tricarboxylic acid cycle in electricity-producing bacterial cells of Shewanella. PLoS One. 2013;8:e72901. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Meyerdierks A, Kube M, Kostadinov I, Teeling H, Glöckner FO, Reinhardt R, Amann R. Metagenome and mRNA expression analyses of anaerobic methanotrophic archaea of the ANME-1 group. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:422–439. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02083.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Miyahara M, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K. Use of cassette-electrode microbial fuel cell for wastewater treatment. J Biosci Bioeng. 2013;115:176–181. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2012.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mori K, Tsurumaru H, Harayama S. Iron corrosion activity of anaerobic hydrogen-consuming microorganisms isolated from oil facilities. J Biosci Bioeng. 2010;110:426–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Morita M, Malvankar NS, Franks AE, Summers ZM, Giloteaux L, Rotaru AE, Rotaru C, Lovley DR. Potential for direct interspecies electron transfer in methanogenic wastewater digester aggregates. mBio. 2011;2:e00159-11. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00159-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Nakamura R, Kai F, Okamoto A, Newton GJ, Hashimoto K. Self-constructed electrically conductive bacterial networks. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2009;48:508–511. doi: 10.1002/anie.200804750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Nevin KP, Woodard TL, Franks AE, Summers ZM, Lovley DR. Microbial electrosynthesis: feeding microbes electricity to convert carbon dioxide and water to multicarbon extracellular organic compounds. MBio. 2010;1:e00103-10. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00103-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Nevin KP, Hensley SA, Franks AE, Summers ZM, Ou J, Woodard TL, Snoeyenbos-West OL, Lovley DR. Electrosynthesis of organic compounds from carbon dioxide is catalyzed by a diversity of acetogenic microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:2882–2826. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02642-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Nishio K, Nakamura R, Lin X, Konno T, Ishihara K, Nakanishi S, Hashimoto K. Extracellular electron transfer across bacterial cell membranes via a cytocompatible redox-active polymer. ChemPhysChem. 2013;14:2159–2163. doi: 10.1002/cphc.201300117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Nishio K, Kimoto Y, Song J, Konno T, Ishihara K, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Nakanishi S. Extracellular electron transfer enhances polyhydroxybutyrate productivity in Ralstonia eutropha. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2014;1:40–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Okamoto A, Hashimoto K, Nealson KH, Nakamura R. Rate enhancement of bacterial extracellular electron transport involves bound flavin semiquinones. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:7856–7861. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220823110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Okamoto A, Saito K, Inoue K, Nealson KH, Hashimoto K, Nakamura R. Uptake of self-secreted flavins as bound cofactors for extracellular electron transfer in Geobacter species. Energy Environ Sci. 2013;7:1357–1361. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Peguin S, Delorme P, Goma G, Soucaille P. Enhanced alcohol yields in batch cultures of Clostridium acetobutylicum using a three-electrode potentiometric system with methyl viologen as electron carrier. Biotechnol Lett. 1994;16:269–274. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Pirbadian S, Barchinger SE, Leung KM, et al. Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 nanowires are outer membrane and periplasmic extensions of the extracellular electron transport components. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:12883–12888. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410551111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Rabaey K, Boon N, Siciliano SD, Verhaege M, Verstraete W. Biofuel cells select for microbial consortia that self-mediate electron transfer. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:5373–5382. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.9.5373-5382.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Rabaey K, Rozendal RA. Microbial electrosynthesis— revisiting the electrical route for microbial production. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:706–716. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Reguera G, McCarthy KD, Mehta T, Nicoll JS, Tuominen MT, Lovley DR. Extracellular electron transfer via microbial nanowires. Nature. 2005;435:1098–1101. doi: 10.1038/nature03661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ren H, Lee HS, Chae J. Miniaturizing microbial fuel cells for potential portable power sources: promises and challenges. Microfluid Nanofluid. 2012;13:353–381. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Richter K, Schicklberger M, Gescher J. Dissimilatory reduction of extracellular electron acceptors in anaerobic respiration. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:913–921. doi: 10.1128/AEM.06803-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Rosenbaum M, Aulenta F, Villano M, Angenent LT. Cathodes as electron donors for microbial metabolism: which extracellular electron transfer mechanisms are involved? Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:324–333. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Rosenbaum MA, Henrich AW. Engineering microbial electrocatalysis for chemical and fuel production. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014;29:93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Rotaru AE, Shrestha PM, Liu F, Markovaite B, Chen S, Nevin KP, Lovley DR. Direct interspecies electron transfer between Geobacter metallireducens and Methanosarcina barkeri. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:4599–4605. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00895-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Rozendal RA, Jeremiasse AW, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. Hydrogen production with a microbial biocathode. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:629–634. doi: 10.1021/es071720+. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Schink B. Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61:262–280. doi: 10.1128/mmbr.61.2.262-280.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Shi L, Squier TC, Zachara JM, Fredrickson JK. Respiration of metal (hydr)oxides by Shewanella and Geobacter: a key role for multihaem c-type cytochromes. Mol Microbiol. 2007;65:12–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05783.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Steinbusch KJJ, Hamelers HVM, Schaap JD, Kampman C, Buisman CJN. Bioelectrochemical ethanol production through mediated acetate reduction by mixed cultures. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:513–517. doi: 10.1021/es902371e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Stolz JF, Oremland RS. Bacterial respiration of arsenic and selenium. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1999;23:615–627. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00416.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Summers ZM, Fogarty HE, Leang C, Franks AE, Malvankar NS, Lovley DR. Direct exchange of electrons within aggregates of an evolved syntrophic coculture of anaerobic bacteria. Science. 2010;330:1413–1415. doi: 10.1126/science.1196526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Thrash JC, Coates JD. Review: direct and indirect electrical stimulation of microbial metabolism. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:3921–3931. doi: 10.1021/es702668w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Uchiyama T, Ito K, Mori K, Tsurumaru H, Harayama S. Iron-corroding methanogen isolated from a crude-oil storage tank. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:1783–1788. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00668-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Venzlaff H, Enning D, Srinivasan J, Mayrhofer K, Hassel AW, Widdel F, Stratmann M. Accelerated cathodic reaction in microbial corrosion of iron due to direct electron uptake by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Corros Sci. 2013;66:88–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Vera M, Schippers A, Sand W. Progress in bioleaching: fundamentals and mechanisms of bacterial metal sulfide oxidation— part A. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97:7529–7541. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-4954-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Videla HA, Herrera LK. Microbiologically influenced corrosion: looking to the future. Int Microbiol. 2005;8:169–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Wang YT, Shen H. Bacterial reduction of hexavalent chromium. J Ind Microbiol. 1995;14:159–163. doi: 10.1007/BF01569898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Wang H, Ren ZJ. Bioelectrochemical metal recovery from wastewater: A review. Water Res. 2014;66:219–232. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Watanabe K. Recent developments in microbial fuel cell technologies for sustainable bioenergy. J Biosci Bioeng. 2008;106:528–536. doi: 10.1263/jbb.106.528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Watanabe K, Manefield M, Lee M, Kouzuma A. Electron shuttles in biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2009;20:633–641. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2009.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Weber KA, Achenbach LA, Coates JD. Microorganisms pumping iron: anaerobic microbial iron oxidation and reduction. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4:752–764. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yamada C, Kato S, Kimura S, Ishii M, Igarashi Y. Reduction of Fe(III) oxides by phylogenetically and physiologically diverse thermophilic methanogens. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014;89:637–645. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Yamada C, Kato S, Ueno Y, Ishii M, Igarashi Y. Inhibitory effects of ferrihydrite on a thermophilic methanogenic community. Microbes Environ. 2014;29:227–230. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME14026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Yamada C, Kato S, Ueno Y, Ishii M, Igarashi Y. Conductive iron oxides accelerate thermophilic methanogenesis from acetate and propionate. J Biosci Bioeng. 2015;119:678–682. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Yamamura S, Amachi S. Microbiology of inorganic arsenic: From metabolism to bioremediation. J Biosci Bioeng. 2014;118:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2013.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Zhang T, Nie H, Bain TS, et al. Improved cathode materials for microbial electrosynthesis. Energy Environ Sci. 2013;6:217. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Zhao Y, Watanabe K, Nakamura R, Mori S, Liu H, Ishii K, Hashimoto K. Three-dimensional conductive nanowire networks for maximizing anode performance in microbial fuel cells. Chemistry. 2010;16:4982–4985. doi: 10.1002/chem.200903486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Microbes and Environments are provided here courtesy of Nakanishi Printing

RESOURCES