Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expanded diversity of microbial groups that shape the dissimilatory sulfur cycle

Open access
Anantharaman, Karthik, Hausmann, Bela, Jungbluth, Sean P, Kantor, Rose S, Lavy, Adi, Warren, Lesley A, Rappé, Michael S, Pester, Michael, Loy, Alexander, Thomas, Brian C, Banfield, Jillian F·2018·The ISME Journal

Abstract

A critical step in the biogeochemical cycle of sulfur on Earth is microbial sulfate reduction, yet organisms from relatively few lineages have been implicated in this process. Previous studies using functional marker genes have detected abundant, novel dissimilatory sulfite reductases (DsrAB) that could confer the capacity for microbial sulfite/sulfate reduction but were not affiliated with known organisms. Thus, the identity of a significant fraction of sulfate/sulfite-reducing microbes has remained elusive. Here we report the discovery of the capacity for sulfate/sulfite reduction in the genomes of organisms from 13 bacterial and archaeal phyla, thereby more than doubling the number of microbial phyla associated with this process. Eight of the 13 newly identified groups are candidate phyla that lack isolated representatives, a finding only possible given genomes from metagenomes. Organisms from Verrucomicrobia and two candidate phyla, Candidatus Rokubacteria and Candidatus Hydrothermarchaeota, contain some of the earliest evolved dsrAB genes. The capacity for sulfite reduction has been laterally transferred in multiple events within some phyla, and a key gene potentially capable of modulating sulfur metabolism in associated cells has been acquired by putatively symbiotic bacteria. We conclude that current functional predictions based on phylogeny significantly underestimate the extent of sulfate/sulfite reduction across Earth’s ecosystems. Understanding the prevalence of this capacity is integral to interpreting the carbon cycle because sulfate reduction is often coupled to turnover of buried organic carbon. Our findings expand the diversity of microbial groups associated with sulfur transformations in the environment and motivate revision of biogeochemical process models based on microbial community composition.

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/s41396-018-0078-0

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 453

Metadata

Authors
Anantharaman, K., Hausmann, B., Jungbluth, S. P., Kantor, R. S., Lavy, A., Warren, L. A., Rappé, M. S., Pester, M., Loy, A., Thomas, B. C., & Banfield, J. F.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2018-02-21
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
1715-1728
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2789511815
Cited by
453
References
5
FWCI
30.42
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: Expanded diversity of microbial groups that shape the dissimilatory sulfur cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41396-018-0078-0
The paper
Anantharaman, K., Hausmann, B., Jungbluth, S. P., Kantor, R. S., Lavy, A., Warren, L. A., Rappé, M. S., Pester, M., Loy, A., Thomas, B. C., & Banfield, J. F. (2018). Expanded diversity of microbial groups that shape the dissimilatory sulfur cycle. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0078-0

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.