The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to get more out of molecular fingerprints: practical tools for microbial ecology
Abstract
Summary: Community‐level molecular techniques are widely used in comparative microbial ecology to assess the diversity of microbial communities and their response to changing environments. These include among others denaturing and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE/TGGE), single‐strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP), length heterogeneity‐PCR (LH‐PCR), terminal‐restriction fragment length polymorphism (tRFLP) and 16S rRNA gene clone libraries. The amount of data derived from these techniques available in literature is continuously increasing and the lack of a universal way to interpret the raw fingerprint itself makes it difficult to compare between different results. Taking the DGGE technique as an example, we propose a setting‐independent theoretical interpretation of the DGGE pattern, based on a straightforward processing on three levels of analysis: (i) the range‐weighted richness ( Rr ) reflecting the carrying capacity of the system, (ii) the dynamics ( Dy ) reflecting the specific rate of species coming to significance, and (iii) functional organization ( Fo ), defined through a relation between the structure of a microbial community and its functionality. These Rr , Dy and Fo values, each representing a score to describe a microbial community, can be plotted in a 3D graph. The latter represents a visual ecological interpretation of the initial raw fingerprinting pattern.
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
Ben-Dov, E., Shapiro, O. H., Siboni, N., & Kushmaro, A. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00849-06 · Cited by 100
Brusetti, L., Borin, S., Mora, D., Rizzi, A., Raddadi, N., Sorlini, C., & Daffonchio, D. (2006) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2005.00059.x · Cited by 64
Self-citation
Cited by
Deep Learning for Drug-Induced Liver Injury
Xu, Y., Dai, Z., Chen, F., Gao, S., Pei, J., & Lai, L. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00238 · Cited by 382
Challenges of unculturable bacteria: environmental perspectives
Bodor, A., Bounedjoum, N., Vincze, G. E., Erdeiné Kis, Á., Laczi, K., Bende, G., Szilágyi, Á., Kovács, T., Perei, K., & Rákhely, G. (2020) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-020-09522-4 · Cited by 348
AI in drug discovery and its clinical relevance
Qureshi, R., Irfan, M., Gondal, T. M., Khan, S., Wu, J., Hadi, M. U., Heymach, J., Le, X., Yan, H., & Alam, T. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17575 · Cited by 319
(2016) · PubMed · Cited by 287
Borgdorff, H., Tsivtsivadze, E., Verhelst, R., Marzorati, M., Jurriaans, S., Ndayisaba, G. F., Schuren, F. H., & van de Wijgert, J. H. H. M. (2014) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.26 · Cited by 287
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Marzorati, M., Wittebolle, L., Boon, N., Daffonchio, D., & Verstraete, W.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-06
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1571-1581
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W1578737958
- Cited by
- 501
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 30.23
- 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: How to get more out of molecular fingerprints: practical tools for microbial ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01572.x
- The paper
- Marzorati, M., Wittebolle, L., Boon, N., Daffonchio, D., & Verstraete, W. (2008). How to get more out of molecular fingerprints: practical tools for microbial ecology. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01572.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.