The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans
Open accessAbstract
A comparison was made of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. Although all three organisms reduced nitrate to dinitrogen gas, they did so at different rates and accumulated different kinds and amounts of intermediates. Their rates of anaerobic growth on nitrate varied about 1.5-fold; concomitant gas production varied more than 8-fold. Cell yields from nitrate varied threefold. Rates of gas production by resting cells incubated with nitrate, nitrite, or nitrous oxide varied 2-, 6-, and 15-fold, respectively, among the three species. The composition of the gas produced also varied markedly: Pseudomonas stutzeri produced only dinitrogen; Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Paracoccus denitrificans produced nitrous oxide as well; and under certain conditions Pseudomonas aeruginosa produced even more nitrous oxide than dinitrogen. Pseudomonas stutzeri and Paracoccus denitrificans rapidly reduced nitrate, nitrite, and nitrous oxide and were able to grow anaerobically when any of these nitrogen oxides were present in the medium. Pseudomonas aeruginosa reduced these oxides slowly and was unable to grow anaerobically at the expense of nitrous oxide. Furthermore, nitric and nitrous oxide reduction by Pseudomonas aeruginosa were exceptionally sensitive to inhibition by nitrite. Thus, although it has been well studied physiologically and genetically, Pseudomonas aeruginosa may not be the best species for studying the later steps of the denitrification pathway.
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
Cited by
Worlitzsch, D., Tarran, R., Ulrich, M., Schwab, U., Cekici, A., Meyer, K. C., Birrer, P., Bellon, G., Berger, J., Weiss, T., et al. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci0213870 · Cited by 932
Bali, S., Palmer, D. J., Schroeder, S., Ferguson, S. J., & Warren, M. J. (2014) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00018-014-1563-x · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlson, C. A., & Ingraham, J. L.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1983-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1247-1253
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1940901771
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.87
- 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: Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.45.4.1247-1253.1983
- The paper
- Carlson, C. A., & Ingraham, J. L. (1983). Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.45.4.1247-1253.1983
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.