The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fermentation of 2,3-butanediol by Pelobacter carbinolicus sp. nov. and Pelobacter propionicus sp. nov., and evidence for propionate formation from C2 compounds
Open accessAbstract
From anaerobic enrichments with 2,3-butanediol as sole substrate pure cultures of new Gram-negative, strictly anaerobic, non-sporeforming bacteria were isolated. Similar isolates were obtained with acetoin as substrate. From marine muds in saltwater medium a short rod (strain Gra Bd 1) was isolated which fermented butanediol, acetoin and ethylene glycol to acetate and ethanol. The DNA base ratio of this strain was 52.3 mol% guanine plus cytosine.From freshwater sediments and sewage sludge, a different type of short rod (strain Ott Bd 1) was isolated in freshwater medium, which fermented butanediol, acetoin, ethanol, lactate and pyruvate stoichiometrically to acetate and propionate. Propanol and butanol were oxidized to the respective fatty acids with concomitant reduction of acetate and bicarbonate to propionate. The DNA base ratio of strain Ott Bd 1 was 57.4 mol% guanine plus cytosine. No other substrates were used by the isolates, and no other products could be detected. In cocultures with Acetobacterium woodii or Methanospirillum hungatei, strain Gra Bd 1 also grew on ethanol, propanol, and butanol by fermenting these alcohols to the respective fatty acids and molecular hydrogen. Cytochromes could not be detected in any of the new isolates. Since both types of bacteria can not be affiliated to any of the existing genera and species, the new species Pelobacter carbinolicus and Pelobacter propionicus are proposed. The mechanism of butanediol degradation and propionate formation from acetate as well as the ecological importance of both processes are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria
Thauer, R. K., Jungermann, K., & Decker, K. (1977) · Bacteriological Reviews · doi:10.1128/br.41.1.100-180.1977 · Cited by 4,146
Cited by
RETRACTED: A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus
Wolfe-Simon, F., Blum, J. S., Kulp, T. R., Gordon, G. W., Hoeft, S. E., Pett-Ridge, J., Stolz, J. F., Webb, S. M., Weber, P. K., Davies, P. C. W., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1197258 · Cited by 503
RetractedDissimilatory Sulfate- and Sulfur-Reducing Prokaryotes
Rabus, R., Hansen, T. A., & Widdel, F. (2013) · The Prokaryotes · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30141-4_70 · Cited by 441
Methane Production and Conductive Materials: A Critical Review
Martins, G., Salvador, A. F., Pereira, L., & Alves, M. M. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b01913 · Cited by 432
Phylogenetic analysis of dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducing bacteria
Lonergan, D. J., Jenter, H. L., Coates, J. D., Phillips, E. J., Schmidt, T. M., & Lovley, D. R. (1996) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.178.8.2402-2408.1996 · Cited by 380
Schink, B., & Stams, A. J. M. (2013) · The Prokaryotes · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30123-0_59 · Cited by 371
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schink, B.
- Venue
- Archives of Microbiology
- Published
- 1984-01
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-41
- ISSN
- 0003-9276 (ISSN-L)
- 0302-8933
- 1432-072X
- OpenAlex
- W2063159439
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Fermentation of 2,3-butanediol by Pelobacter carbinolicus sp. nov. and Pelobacter propionicus sp. nov., and evidence for propionate formation from C2 compounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf00425804
- The paper
- Schink, B. (1984). Fermentation of 2,3-butanediol by Pelobacter carbinolicus sp. nov. and Pelobacter propionicus sp. nov., and evidence for propionate formation from C2 compounds. Archives of Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00425804
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.