The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantification of bacterial subgroups in soil: comparison of DNA extracted directly from soil or from cells previously released by density gradient centrifugation
Abstract
All molecular analyses of soil bacterial diversity are based on the extraction of a representative fraction of cellular DNA. Methods of DNA extraction for this purpose are divided into two categories: those in which cells are lysed within the soil (direct extraction) and those in which cells are first removed from soil (cell extraction) and then lysed. The purpose of this study was to compare a method of direct extraction with a method in which cells were first separated from the soil matrix by Nycodenz gradient centrifugation in order to evaluate the effect of these different approaches on the analysis of the spectrum of diversity in a microbial community. We used a method based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of a 16S rRNA gene fragment, followed by hybridization of the amplified fragments to a set of specific probes to assess the phylogenetic diversity of our samples. Control parameters, such as the relationship between amount of DNA template and amount of PCR product and the influence of competing DNA on PCR amplification, were first examined. Comparison between extraction methods showed that less DNA was extracted when cells were first separated from the soil matrix (0.4 µg g −1 dry weight soil versus 38–93 µg g −1 obtained by in situ lysis methods). However, with the exception of the γ‐subclass of Proteobacteria, there was no significant difference in the spectrum of diversity resulting from the two extraction strategies.
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
The complete genome sequence of the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus subtilis.
Kunst, F., Ogasawara, N., Moszer, I., Albertini, A. M., Alloni, G., Azevedo, V., Bertero, M. G., Bessières, P., Bolotin, A., Borchert, S., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/36786 · Cited by 3,679
Cited by
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Mao, D., Luo, Y., Mathieu, J., Wang, Q., Feng, L., Mu, Q., Feng, C., & Alvarez, P. J. J. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es404280v · Cited by 508
The soil metagenome – a rich resource for the discovery of novel natural products
Daniel, R. (2004) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2004.04.005 · Cited by 334
López, P., de Paz, B., Rodríguez-Carrio, J., Hevia, A., Sánchez, B., Margolles, A., & Suárez, A. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep24072 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Courtois, S., Frostegård, Å., Göransson, P., Depret, G., Jeannin, P., & Simonet, P.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 431-439
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W2168529580
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.19
- 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: Quantification of bacterial subgroups in soil: comparison of DNA extracted directly from soil or from cells previously released by density gradient centrifugation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2001.00208.x
- The paper
- Courtois, S., Frostegård, Å., Göransson, P., Depret, G., Jeannin, P., & Simonet, P. (2001). Quantification of bacterial subgroups in soil: comparison of DNA extracted directly from soil or from cells previously released by density gradient centrifugation. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2001.00208.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.