Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

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

Construction and analysis of bacterial artificial chromosome libraries from a marine microbial assemblage

Béjà, Oded, Suzuki, Marcelino T., Koonin, Eugene V., Aravind, L., Hadd, Andrew, Nguyen, Linh P., Villacorta, Rachel, Amjadi, Mojgan, Garrigues, Corey, Jovanovich, Stevan B., Feldman, Robert A., DeLong, Edward F.·2000·Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Cultivation‐independent surveys of ribosomal RNA genes have revealed the existence of novel microbial lineages, many with no known cultivated representatives. Ribosomal RNA‐based analyses, however, often do not provide significant information beyond phylogenetic affiliation. Analysis of large genome fragments recovered directly from microbial communities represents one promising approach for characterizing uncultivated microbial species better. To assess further the utility of this approach, we constructed large‐insert bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries from the genomic DNA of planktonic marine microbial assemblages. The BAC libraries we prepared had average insert sizes of ≈ 80 kb, with maximal insert sizes > 150 kb. A rapid screening method assessing the phylogenetic diversity and representation in the library was developed and applied. In general, representation in the libraries agreed well with previous culture‐independent surveys based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐amplified rRNA fragments. A significant fraction of the genome fragments in the BAC libraries originated from as yet uncultivated microbial species, thought to be abundant and widely distributed in the marine environment. One entire BAC insert, derived from an uncultivated, surface‐dwelling euryarchaeote, was sequenced completely. The planktonic euryarchaeal genome fragment contained some typical archaeal genes, as well as unique open reading frames (ORFs) suggesting novel function. In total, our results verify the utility of BAC libraries for providing access to the genomes of as yet uncultivated microbial species. Further analysis of these BAC libraries has the potential to provide significant insight into the genomic potential and ecological roles of many indigenous microbial species, cultivated or not.

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.1462-2920.2000.00133.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 362

Metadata

Authors
Béjà, O., Suzuki, M. T., Koonin, E. V., Aravind, L., Hadd, A., Nguyen, L. P., Villacorta, R., Amjadi, M., Garrigues, C., Jovanovich, S. B., Feldman, R. A., & DeLong, E. F.
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-10
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
516-529
ISSN
  • 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-2920
OpenAlex
W1988654243
Cited by
362
References
2
FWCI
25.37
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: Construction and analysis of bacterial artificial chromosome libraries from a marine microbial assemblage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2000.00133.x
The paper
Béjà, O., Suzuki, M. T., Koonin, E. V., Aravind, L., Hadd, A., Nguyen, L. P., Villacorta, R., Amjadi, M., Garrigues, C., Jovanovich, S. B., Feldman, R. A., & DeLong, E. F. (2000). Construction and analysis of bacterial artificial chromosome libraries from a marine microbial assemblage. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2000.00133.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.