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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4
LAEMMLI, U. K. (1970) · Nature · doi:10.1038/227680a0 · Cited by 249,961
The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities
Fierer, N., & Jackson, R. B. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507535103 · Cited by 5,711
Elias, J. E., & Gygi, S. P. (2007) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth1019 · Cited by 3,925
Cited by
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Amino sugars as specific indices for fungal and bacterial residues in soil
Joergensen, R. G. (2018) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-018-1288-3 · Cited by 593
van der Wal, A., Geydan, T. D., Kuyper, T. W., & de Boer, W. (2013) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/1574-6976.12001 · Cited by 404
Fang, Y., Nazaries, L., Singh, B. K., & Singh, B. P. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14154 · Cited by 382
Chronic nitrogen additions fundamentally restructure the soil fungal community in a temperate forest
Morrison, E. W., Frey, S. D., Sadowsky, J. J., van Diepen, L. T. A., Thomas, W. K., & Pringle, A. (2016) · Fungal Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2016.05.011 · Cited by 258
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.