Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 175

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The culturome of the human nose habitats reveals individual bacterial fingerprint patterns

Open access
Kaspar, Ursula, Kriegeskorte, André, Schubert, Tanja, Peters, Georg, Rudack, Claudia, Pieper, Dietmar H., Wos‐Oxley, Melissa, Becker, Karsten·2016·Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Summary: The complex anatomy of the human nose might offer distinct microbial niches. Microbiota composition may affect nose inflammatory diseases and S taphylococcus aureus carriage. Considering different nasal cavity locations, microbial colonization was analysed across individuals exhibiting chronic nasal inflammatory diseases ( n = 18) and those without local inflammation signs ( n = 16). Samples were collected systematically during surgery and examined by an extensive culture‐based approach and, for a subset, by 16 S rRNA gene community profiling. Cultivation yielded 141 taxa with members of S taphylococcus , C orynebacterium and P ropionibacterium as most common isolates comprising the nasal core culturome together with F inegoldia magna . S taphylococcus aureus was most frequently found in association with S taphylococcus epidermidis and P ropionibacterium acnes , and the posterior vestibules were redefined as S . aureus ' principle habitat. Culturome analysis revealed host‐specific bacterial ‘fingerprints’ irrespective of host‐driven factors or intranasal sites. Comparisons between cultivable and molecular fingerprints demonstrated that only a small fraction of phylotypes (6.2%) was correlated. While the total number of different phylotypes was higher in the molecular dataset, the total number of identifications down to the species level was higher in the culturomic approach. To determine host‐specific microbiomes, the advantages of molecular approaches should be combined with the resolution and reliability of species identification by culturomic analyses.

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 · 10.1111/1462-2920.12891

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 175

Metadata

Authors
Kaspar, U., Kriegeskorte, A., Schubert, T., Peters, G., Rudack, C., Pieper, D. H., Wos‐Oxley, M., & Becker, K.
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-05
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
2130-2142
ISSN
  • 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-2920
OpenAlex
W1560676570
Cited by
175
References
7
FWCI
13.78
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: The culturome of the human nose habitats reveals individual bacterial fingerprint patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1462-2920.12891
The paper
Kaspar, U., Kriegeskorte, A., Schubert, T., Peters, G., Rudack, C., Pieper, D. H., Wos‐Oxley, M., & Becker, K. (2016). The culturome of the human nose habitats reveals individual bacterial fingerprint patterns. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12891

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.