Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sulphate reduction and vertical distribution of sulphate‐reducing bacteria quantified by rRNA slot‐blot hybridization in a coastal marine sediment

Sahm, Kerstin, MacGregor, Barbara J., Jørgensen, Bo B., Stahl, David A.·1999·Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

In the past, enumeration of sulphate‐reducing bacteria (SRB) by cultivation‐based methods generally contradicted measurements of sulphate reduction, suggesting unrealistically high respiration rates per cell. Here, we report evidence that quantification of SRB rRNA by slot‐blot hybridization is a valuable tool for a more realistic assessment of SRB abundance in the natural environment. The distribution of SRB was investigated in a coastal marine sediment by hybridization of membrane‐immobilized rRNA with oligonucleotide probes. As represented by general probe–target groups, SRB rRNA contributed between 18% and 25% to the prokaryotic rRNA pool. The dominant SRB were related to complete oxidizing genera ( Desulphococcus , Desulphosarcina and Desulphobacterium ), while Desulphobacter could not be detected. The vertical profile and quantity of rRNA from SRB was compared with sulphate reduction rates (SRR) measured with 35 SO 4 2− tracer in whole‐core incubations. While SRB abundance was highest near the surface, peaking at around 1.5 cm, measured sulphate reduction rates were lowest in this region. A second peak of SRB rRNA was observed at the transition zone from oxidized to reduced sediment, directly above the sulphate reduction maximum. Cell numbers calculated by converting the relative contribution of SRB rRNA to the percentage of DAPI‐stained cells indicated a population size for SRB of 2.4–6.1 × 10 8 cells cm −3 wet sediment. Cellular sulphate reduction rates calculated on the basis of these estimated cell numbers were between 0.01 and 0.09 fmol SO 4 2− cell −1 day −1 , which is below the rates that have been determined for pure cultures (0.2–50 fmol SO 4 2− cell −1 day −1 ) growing exponentially at near‐ optimal temperature with a surplus of substrates.

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 · 10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00007.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Sahm, K., MacGregor, B. J., Jørgensen, B. B., & Stahl, D. A.
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-02
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
65-74
ISSN
  • 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-2920
OpenAlex
W2090631832
Cited by
172
References
2
FWCI
14.50
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sulphate reduction and vertical distribution of sulphate‐reducing bacteria quantified by rRNA slot‐blot hybridization in a coastal marine sediment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00007.x
The paper
Sahm, K., MacGregor, B. J., Jørgensen, B. B., & Stahl, D. A. (1999). Sulphate reduction and vertical distribution of sulphate‐reducing bacteria quantified by rRNA slot‐blot hybridization in a coastal marine sediment. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00007.x

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.