The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proposal of Roseburia faecis sp. nov., Roseburia hominis sp. nov. and Roseburia inulinivorans sp. nov., based on isolates from human faeces
Abstract
Seven recently cultured bacterial isolates, although similar in their 16S rRNA gene sequences to Roseburia intestinalis L1-82 T(DSM 14610 T), were not sufficiently related for inclusion within existing species, forming three separate clusters in a 16S rRNA gene phylogenetic tree. The isolates, which were obtained from human stools, were Gram-variable or Gram-negative, strictly anaerobic, slightly curved rods; cells from all strains measured approximately 0.5×1.5–5.0 μm and were motile. Two strains belonging to one cluster (A2-181 and A2-183 T) were the only strains that were able to grow on glycerol and that failed to grow on any of the complex substrates tested (inulin, xylan and amylopectin). Strains belonging to a second cluster (represented by M6/1 and M72/1 T) differed from the other isolates in their ability to grow on sorbitol. Isolates belonging to a third cluster (L1-83 and A2-194 T) were the only strains that failed to grow on xylose and that gave good growth on inulin (strains M6/1 and M72/1 T gave weak growth). All strains were net acetate utilizers. The DNA G+C contents of representative Roseburia strains A2-183 T, A2-194 T, M72/1 T and R. intestinalis L1-82 T were 47.4, 41.4, 42.0 and 42.6 mol%, respectively. Based on 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity, three novel Roseburia species are proposed, with the names Roseburia hominis sp. nov. (type strain A2-183 T=DSM 16839 T=NCIMB 14029 T),Roseburia inulinivorans sp. nov. (type strain A2-194 T=DSM 16841 T=NCIMB 14030 T) and Roseburia faecis sp. nov. (type strain M72/1 T=DSM 16840 T=NCIMB 14031 T).
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
Hold, G. L., Schwiertz, A., Aminov, R. I., Blaut, M., & Flint, H. J. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.7.4320-4324.2003 · Cited by 350
Self-citation
Cited by
Dethlefsen, L., & Relman, D. A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1000087107 · Cited by 2,421
Dethlefsen, L., Huse, S., Sogin, M. L., & Relman, D. A. (2008) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060280 · Cited by 2,361
Louis, P., & Flint, H. J. (2009) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01514.x · Cited by 2,179
Self-citationMachiels, K., Joossens, M., Sabino, J., De Preter, V., Arijs, I., Eeckhaut, V., Ballet, V., Claes, K., Van Immerseel, F., Verbeke, K., et al. (2014) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304833 · Cited by 1,904
The influence of diet on the gut microbiota
Scott, K. P., Gratz, S. W., Sheridan, P. O., Flint, H. J., & Duncan, S. H. (2013) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2012.10.020 · Cited by 1,052
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Duncan, S. H., Aminov, R. I., Scott, K. P., Louis, P., Stanton, T. B., & Flint, H. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 2006-10-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2437-2441
- ISSN
- 1466-5026 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-5034
- OpenAlex
- W2169457151
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.42
- 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: Proposal of Roseburia faecis sp. nov., Roseburia hominis sp. nov. and Roseburia inulinivorans sp. nov., based on isolates from human faeces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/ijs.0.64098-0
- The paper
- Duncan, S. H., Aminov, R. I., Scott, K. P., Louis, P., Stanton, T. B., & Flint, H. J. (2006). Proposal of Roseburia faecis sp. nov., Roseburia hominis sp. nov. and Roseburia inulinivorans sp. nov., based on isolates from human faeces. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64098-0
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.