Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 723

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions

Open access
Schneider, Thomas, Keiblinger, Katharina M, Schmid, Emanuel, Sterflinger-Gleixner, Katja, Ellersdorfer, Günther, Roschitzki, Bernd, Richter, Andreas, Eberl, Leo, Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie, Riedel, Kathrin·2012·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Leaf-litter decomposition is a central process in carbon cycling; however, our knowledge about the microbial regulation of this process is still scarce. Metaproteomics allows us to link the abundance and activity of enzymes during nutrient cycling to their phylogenetic origin based on proteins, the ‘active building blocks’ in the system. Moreover, we employed metaproteomics to investigate the influence of environmental factors and nutrients on the decomposer structure and function during beech litter decomposition. Litter was collected at forest sites in Austria with different litter nutrient content. Proteins were analyzed by 1-D-SDS-PAGE followed by liquid-chromatography and tandem mass-spectrometry. Mass spectra were assigned to phylogenetic and functional groups by a newly developed bioinformatics workflow, assignments being validated by complementary approaches. We provide evidence that the litter nutrient content and the stoichiometry of C:N:P affect the decomposer community structure and activity. Fungi were found to be the main producers of extracellular hydrolytic enzymes, with no bacterial hydrolases being detected by our metaproteomics approach. Detailed investigation of microbial succession suggests that it is influenced by litter nutrient content. Microbial activity was stimulated at higher litter nutrient contents via a higher abundance and activity of extracellular enzymes.

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.2012.11

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 723

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, T., Keiblinger, K. M., Schmid, E., Sterflinger-Gleixner, K., Ellersdorfer, G., Roschitzki, B., Richter, A., Eberl, L., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., & Riedel, K.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2012-03-08
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
1749-1762
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W1977019412
Cited by
723
References
3
FWCI
48.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2012.11
The paper
Schneider, T., Keiblinger, K. M., Schmid, E., Sterflinger-Gleixner, K., Ellersdorfer, G., Roschitzki, B., Richter, A., Eberl, L., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., & Riedel, K. (2012). Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.11

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.