An independent scientific resourceBioinorganic microbiology
Microbial Metallomics
Read the field
TopicsExplore the guide by subjectStart hereThe organizing thesisFollow the metalForm, compartment, and microbial accessThe ScienceHow microbes use and compete for metalsMetals atlasElements, mechanisms, and biological consequencesGlossaryFind a term and its meaningFrequently asked questionsAnswers about microbes and metalsEssaysThe metal–microbiome–disease axis
Work with the evidence
Host metal defensesBinding, routing, buffering, and exportUnexpected metal biologySurprising interactions, investigatedDisease signaturesMetal patterns, microbial mechanisms, next experimentsEvidence explorerSearch, filter, and export the catalogPaper ReviewsStudies, read in contextCritical CommentaryClose readings and open questionsMethods comparisonMatch a tool to a questionEvidence guideDesign, inference, and publication status
People & participation
Who’s WhoResearchers, expertise, and public contactsResearch questionsProposed directions and missing measurementsContribute or correctPrepare a sourced suggestionSaved readingYour list on this browserAbout this resourcePurpose and affiliations
Follow & understand
Follow the fieldWays to keep up with new writingRSS feedsAll writing or a selected sectionLatest & changesNew articles and site revisionsEditorial standardsSources, disclosures, and correctionsResearch LandscapeJournals, facilities, and milestones

The field guide

Make every interpretation traceable

How the guide turns findings into explanations, hypotheses, and research questions—and keeps each connection traceable.

This field guide explains what microbial metallomics has established and what its discoveries make possible. It connects mechanisms, microbial communities, metal chemistry, and disease to identify useful directions for research. The standards below keep those connections ambitious, explicit, and open to testing.

What belongs in the guide

Coverage concerns microbial metal handling, analytical metallomics, exposures, host–microbe interactions, and applications grounded in those subjects. Selection prioritizes explanatory mechanisms, informative measurements, discoveries that connect disciplines, and questions capable of changing how the field thinks or works. Findings that challenge an interpretation belong alongside supportive findings.

The library is a curated selection, not an exhaustive systematic review. Any article claiming a systematic search should give its method, dates, eligibility criteria, and treatment of excluded evidence.

Mechanisms show where research can go next

Element profiles begin with the chemistry that changes microbial behavior: recognition and access, the protein or pathway affected, and the biological consequence. A report of antimicrobial activity should explain how the effect arises when that mechanism is known. When it is unresolved, we identify the observed effect and the experiment needed to connect the missing steps.

Mechanistic reasoning is part of the guide's scientific contribution. A discovery can reveal a new target, explain an otherwise puzzling observation, or connect fields that have been studied separately. We explain why that connection deserves investigation, even when the proposed application has not yet been tested.

A strong proposal has a visible chain: the finding that grounds it, the mechanism that connects the steps, the hypothesis that follows, and the observation that could distinguish it from another explanation. Each step should make clear whether it was measured in the cited work or is an inference developed here. A source supporting one step should not appear to establish the entire chain.

Absence of evidence for an untested proposition is different from evidence against it. Missing evidence identifies work still to be done; a result that conflicts with a hypothesis's predictions can weigh against that explanation. We distinguish an untested question, an inconclusive test, and an informative contrary finding. The possibility of future support does not make a hypothesis established; the absence of a clinical trial does not make a grounded mechanism unimportant.

Research priorities should follow from explanatory value, biological relevance, tractable questions, and the importance of the problem. For applications in medicine, we also explain which questions concern mechanism, which concern an intervention's effects, and which concern benefit and harm in people. These are connected questions that need different evidence.

Keep publication types distinct

Research record
A page introducing an author's research and linking to the source record. Preprints stay labeled as preprints; DOI registration is not peer review.
Paper review
An editorial explanation of a cited paper, its measurements, results, and limitations. “Review” does not mean this site conducted the journal's peer review.
Essay
A synthesis or argument that connects findings, develops explanations, and proposes research directions. It should show the mechanism behind a proposed connection and what evidence would strengthen or weaken it.
Critical commentary
An assessment of methods, inference, or unanswered questions. It should address the evidence, acknowledge strengths, and state what could resolve a disagreement.

Sources, identity, and interpretation

  • Link the original paper or authoritative record. Keep its authors separate from the author of a site review.
  • Describe the system, outcome, comparison, and major limitations. Do not turn association into causation through wording.
  • Preserve source titles, dates, and identifiers. A current affiliation and one recorded in an older paper may differ.
  • Link verified personal ORCID identifiers. They disambiguate a person; they do not endorse conclusions.
  • Identify a proposal as a proposal, show which findings motivate it, and name the observations that could distinguish it from competing explanations. Keep completed measurements separate from proposed work.

See the evidence guide, ORCID's display guidance ↗, and Crossref's citation-metadata guidance ↗.

Affiliations and competing interests

Karen Pendergrass is associated with Heavy Metal Index and the Institute of Contaminant Standards (ICS). Her institutional record identifies executive, standards, and research responsibilities. These relationships are relevant to work intersecting with contaminant evidence and standards.

Authors should disclose relevant financial, professional, or institutional interests. Coverage of a person or organization does not imply endorsement or participation in the site's editorial work. Research interpretation here does not award product certification or establish a regulatory limit.

Corrections and responses

Identify the passage, URL, proposed correction, and supporting source in a contribution brief. An interpretive disagreement should identify the inference and the evidence that changes it.

Substantive corrections should carry a dated note explaining what changed and why. Preserve the original publication date and use a separate update date for material revisions. If a source is corrected or retracted, state that status and reconsider the affected interpretation. Spelling or layout fixes do not imply a new scientific review.

A response from a discussed paper's author should identify the commentary and relevant interests. Publication remains an editorial decision; no response time is promised, and silence does not imply agreement.

AI assistance and responsibility

AI tools assist this site's development and may support drafting and organization. They are not authors, peer reviewers, or evidence sources. Claims require traceable sources, and named authors remain responsible for their contributions. Generated conceptual illustrations should be labeled and must not be presented as experimental images.

Privacy and browser storage

Your theme preference and saved reading list stay in this browser using localStorage. No account is needed. Clearing this site's browser data removes those preferences and saved items.

If you sign up for the newsletter, your email address is processed and stored by Resend for confirmation and newsletter delivery. You must confirm your email before receiving the newsletter. Every newsletter includes an unsubscribe link. We have not added advertising, open, or click tracking to the newsletter. See Resend’s privacy policy for its processing practices. The contribution-brief tool prepares text in your browser; it does not send it.

The external professional contact form has its own privacy terms. Our hosting service and third-party font providers may receive technical request data when you load the site or its resources.