The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bacterial diversity in a soil sample from a subtropical Australian environment as determined by 16S rDNA analysis.
Abstract
In order to investigate the genetic diversity of streptomycetes in an acid forested soil sample from Mt. Coot-tha, Brisbane, Australia, cells were mechanically lysed within the soil matrix and genomic DNA was isolated and purified. 16S ribosomal (r)DNA was amplified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method using one primer conserved for members of the domain Bacteria and a second designed specifically for streptomycetes and related taxa. PCR amplification products were cloned into phage vector M13 mp19 and the diversity of 16S rDNA genes was determined by sequence analysis and oligonucleotide probing of the resultant clone library. Comparison of partial 16S rDNA sequences with published sequences revealed that few sequences originated from streptomycetes. The majority of sequences belonged to members of the alpha subclass of Proteobacteria. Other clones were related to planctomycetes, actinomycetes, or represented novel lines of descent. Bacteria that are customarily isolated from soil of pH 4-7 such as thiobacilli, bacilli, spore- and nonsporeforming actinomycetes, and pseudomonads are represented in the clone library in small numbers or were not detected at all. Parameters influencing the recovery, amplification, quantification, and interpretation of genetic information from natural sites are discussed.
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
Evolution of Protein Molecules
JUKES, T. H., & CANTOR, C. R. (1969) · Mammalian Protein Metabolism · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 · Cited by 11,032
Cited by
The Uncultured Microbial Majority
Rappé, M. S., & Giovannoni, S. J. (2003) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.090759 · Cited by 2,017
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
Gunatilaka, A. A. L. (2006) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np058128n · Cited by 1,032
Total bacterial diversity in soil and sediment communities—A review
Torsvik, V, Sørheim, R., & Goksøyr, J. (1996) · Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/bf01574690 · Cited by 517
Isolation of Antibiotics Turbomycin A and B from a Metagenomic Library of Soil Microbial DNA
Gillespie, D. E., Brady, S. F., Bettermann, A. D., Cianciotto, N. P., Liles, M. R., Rondon, M. R., Clardy, J., Goodman, R. M., & Handelsman, J. (2002) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.68.9.4301-4306.2002 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Stackebrandt, E., Liesack, W., & Goebel, B. M.
- Venue
- The FASEB Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 232-236
- ISSN
- 0892-6638 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-6860
- OpenAlex
- W1573139894
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.66
- 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: Bacterial diversity in a soil sample from a subtropical Australian environment as determined by 16S rDNA analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1096/fasebj.7.1.8422969
- The paper
- Stackebrandt, E., Liesack, W., & Goebel, B. M. (1993). Bacterial diversity in a soil sample from a subtropical Australian environment as determined by 16S rDNA analysis. The FASEB Journal. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.7.1.8422969
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.