The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An evaluation of terminal‐restriction fragment length polymorphism (T‐RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics
Abstract
A systematic evaluation of the value and potential of terminal‐restriction fragment length polymorphism (T‐RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure has been undertaken. The reproducibility and robustness of the method has been assessed using environmental DNA samples isolated directly from PCB‐polluted or pristine soil, and subsequent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of total community 16S rDNA. An initial investigation to assess the variability both within and between different polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) runs showed that almost identical community profiles were consistently produced from the same sample. Similarly, very little variability was observed as a result of variation between replicate restriction digestions, PCR amplifications or between replicate DNA isolations. Decreasing concentrations of template DNA produced a decline in both the complexity and the intensity of fragments present in the community profile, with no additional fragments detected in the higher dilutions that were not already present when more original template DNA was used. Reducing the number of cycles of PCR produced similar results. The greatest variation between profiles generated from the same DNA sample was produced using different Taq DNA polymerases, while lower levels of variability were found between PCR products that had been produced using different annealing temperatures. Incomplete digestion by the restriction enzyme may, as a result of the generation of partially digested fragments, lead to an overestimation of the overall diversity within a community. The results obtained indicate that, once standardized, T‐RFLP analysis is a highly reproducible and robust technique that yields high‐quality fingerprints consisting of fragments of precise sizes, which, in principle, could be phylogenetically assigned, once an appropriate database is constructed.
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
Cited by
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
Gut microbiota in health and disease
Sekirov, I., Russell, S. L., Antunes, L. C. M., & Finlay, B. B. (2010) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2009 · Cited by 4,182
Sessitsch, A., Weilharter, A., Gerzabek, M. H., Kirchmann, H., & Kandeler, E. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.9.4215-4224.2001 · Cited by 722
Acinas, S. G., Sarma-Rupavtarm, R., Klepac-Ceraj, V., & Polz, M. F. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8966-8969.2005 · Cited by 625
Dunbar, J., Ticknor, L. O., & Kuske, C. R. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.1.190-197.2001 · Cited by 561
Metadata
- Authors
- Osborn, A. M., Moore, E. R. B., & Timmis, K. N.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-50
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W2086219374
- Cited by
- 847
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.56
- 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: An evaluation of terminal‐restriction fragment length polymorphism (T‐RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2000.00081.x
- The paper
- Osborn, A. M., Moore, E. R. B., & Timmis, K. N. (2000). An evaluation of terminal‐restriction fragment length polymorphism (T‐RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2000.00081.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.