Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Novel predominant archaeal and bacterial groups revealed by molecular analysis of an anaerobic sludge digester

Chouari, Rakia, Le Paslier, Denis, Daegelen, Patrick, Ginestet, Philippe, Weissenbach, Jean, Sghir, Abdelghani·2005·Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Summary: A culture‐independent molecular phylogenetic approach was used to study prokaryotic diversity in an anaerobic sludge digester. Two 16S rRNA gene libraries were constructed using total genomic DNA, and amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers specific for archaeal or bacterial domains. Phylogenetic analysis of 246 and 579 almost full‐length 16S rRNA genes for Archaea and Bacteria , respectively, was performed using the ARB software package. Phylogenetic groups affiliated with the Archaea belong to Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota . Interestingly, we detected a novel monophyletic group of 164 clones representing 66.6% of the archaeal library. Culture enrichment and probe hybridization show that this group grows better under formate or H 2 –CO 2 . Within the bacterial library 95.6% of the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) represent novel putative phylotypes never described before, and affiliated with eight divisions. The Bacteroidetes phylum is the most abundant and diversified phylogenetic group representing 38.8% of the OTUs, followed by the Gram‐positives (27.7%) and the Proteobacteria (21.3%). Sequences affiliated with phylogenetic divisions represented by few cultivated representatives such as the Chloroflexi , Synergistes , Thermotogales or candidate divisions such as OP9 and OP8 are represented by <5% of the total OTUs. A comprehensive set of 15 16S and 23S rRNA‐targeted oligonucleotide hybridization probes was used to quantify these major groups by dot blot hybridization within 12 digester samples. In contrast to the clone library, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria together accounted for 21.8 ± 14.9% representing the most abundant phyla. They were surprisingly followed by the Chloroflexi representing 20.2 ± 4.6% of the total 16S rRNA. The Proteobacteria and the Bacteroidetes group accounted for 14.4 ± 4.9% and 14.5 ± 4.3%, respectively, WWE1, a novel lineage, accounted for 11.9 ± 3.1% while Planctomycetes and Synergistes represented <2% each. Using the novel set of probes we extended the coverage of bacterial populations from 52% to 85.3% of the total rRNA within the digester samples.

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/j.1462-2920.2005.00795.x

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chouari, R., Le Paslier, D., Daegelen, P., Ginestet, P., Weissenbach, J., & Sghir, A.
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-08
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
1104-1115
ISSN
  • 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-2920
OpenAlex
W2118313865
Cited by
290
References
0
FWCI
51.51
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: Novel predominant archaeal and bacterial groups revealed by molecular analysis of an anaerobic sludge digester. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00795.x
The paper
Chouari, R., Le Paslier, D., Daegelen, P., Ginestet, P., Weissenbach, J., & Sghir, A. (2005). Novel predominant archaeal and bacterial groups revealed by molecular analysis of an anaerobic sludge digester. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00795.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.