The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative 16S rDNA and 16S rRNA sequence analysis indicates that Actinobacteria might be a dominant part of the metabolically active bacteria in heavy metal‐contaminated bulk and rhizosphere soil
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Bacterial diversity in 16S ribosomal DNA and reverse‐transcribed 16S rRNA clone libraries originating from the heavy metal‐contaminated rhizosphere of the metal‐hyperaccumulating plant Thlaspi caerulescens was analysed and compared with that of contaminated bulk soil. Partial sequence analysis of 282 clones revealed that most of the environmental sequences in both soils affiliated with five major phylogenetic groups, the Actinobacteria , α‐Proteobacteria , β‐Proteobacteria , Acidobacteria and the Planctomycetales . Only 14.7% of all phylotypes (sequences with similarities> 97%), but 45% of all clones, were common in the rhizosphere and the bulk soil clone libraries. The combined use of rDNA and rRNA libraries indicated which taxa might be metabolically active in this soil. All dominant taxa, with the exception of the Actinobacteria , were relatively less represented in the rRNA libraries compared with the rDNA libraries. Clones belonging to the Verrucomicrobiales , Firmicutes , Cytophaga–Flavobacterium–Bacteroides and OP10 were found only in rDNA clone libraries, indicating that they might not represent active constituents in our samples. The most remarkable result was that sequences belonging to the Actinobacteria dominated both bulk and rhizosphere soil libraries derived from rRNA (50% and 60% of all phylotypes respectively). Seventy per cent of these clone sequences were related to the Rubrobacteria subgroups 2 and 3, thus providing for the first time evidence that this group of bacteria is probably metabolically active in heavy metal‐contaminated soil.
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
Kimura, M. (1980) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01731581 · Cited by 29,778
Cited by
Manganese- and Iron-Dependent Marine Methane Oxidation
Beal, E. J., House, C. H., & Orphan, V. J. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1169984 · Cited by 1,075
The ecology of Acidobacteria: moving beyond genes and genomes
Kielak, A. M., Barreto, C. C., Kowalchuk, G. A., van Veen, J. A., & Kuramae, E. E. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00744 · Cited by 1,033
Sessitsch, A., Kuffner, M., Kidd, P., Vangronsveld, J., Wenzel, W. W., Fallmann, K., & Puschenreiter, M. (2013) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.012 · Cited by 688
Trace element behaviour at the root–soil interface: Implications in phytoremediation
Kidd, P., Barceló, J., Bernal, M. P., Navari-Izzo, F., Poschenrieder, C., Shilev, S., Clemente, R., & Monterroso, C. (2009) · Environmental and Experimental Botany · doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.06.013 · Cited by 395
Garau, G., Castaldi, P., Santona, L., Deiana, P., & Melis, P. (2007) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.07.011 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Gremion, F., Chatzinotas, A., & Harms, H.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-08-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 896-907
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W2138668685
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Comparative 16S rDNA and 16S rRNA sequence analysis indicates that Actinobacteria might be a dominant part of the metabolically active bacteria in heavy metal‐contaminated bulk and rhizosphere soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00484.x
- The paper
- Gremion, F., Chatzinotas, A., & Harms, H. (2003). Comparative 16S rDNA and 16S rRNA sequence analysis indicates that Actinobacteria might be a dominant part of the metabolically active bacteria in heavy metal‐contaminated bulk and rhizosphere soil. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00484.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.