Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Succession of Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacteria in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

Dubinsky, Eric A., Conrad, Mark E., Chakraborty, Romy, Bill, Markus, Borglin, Sharon E., Hollibaugh, James T., Mason, Olivia U., M. Piceno, Yvette, Reid, Francine C., Stringfellow, William T., Tom, Lauren M., Hazen, Terry C., Andersen, Gary L.·2013·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill produced large subsurface plumes of dispersed oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico that stimulated growth of psychrophilic, hydrocarbon degrading bacteria. We tracked succession of plume bacteria before, during and after the 83-day spill to determine the microbial response and biodegradation potential throughout the incident. Dominant bacteria shifted substantially over time and were dependent on relative quantities of different hydrocarbon fractions. Unmitigated flow from the wellhead early in the spill resulted in the highest proportions of n-alkanes and cycloalkanes at depth and corresponded with dominance by Oceanospirillaceae and Pseudomonas. Once partial capture of oil and gas began 43 days into the spill, petroleum hydrocarbons decreased, the fraction of aromatic hydrocarbons increased, and Colwellia, Cycloclasticus, and Pseudoalteromonas increased in dominance. Enrichment of Methylomonas coincided with positive shifts in the δ(13)C values of methane in the plume and indicated significant methane oxidation occurred earlier than previously reported. Anomalous oxygen depressions persisted at plume depths for over six weeks after well shut-in and were likely caused by common marine heterotrophs associated with degradation of high-molecular-weight organic matter, including Methylophaga. Multiple hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria operated simultaneously throughout the spill, but their relative importance was controlled by changes in hydrocarbon supply.

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 · 10.1021/es401676y

Cites

31 of 31 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

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Dubinsky, E. A., Conrad, M. E., Chakraborty, R., Bill, M., Borglin, S. E., Hollibaugh, J. T., Mason, O. U., M. Piceno, Y., Reid, F. C., Stringfellow, W. T., Tom, L. M., Hazen, T. C., & Andersen, G. L.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2013-09-19
Volume
47
Issue
19
Pages
10860-10867
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2330151195
Cited by
366
References
31
FWCI
16.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.