The DOI matches its Crossref record.
High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria
Open accessAbstract
Soil bacterium DNA was isolated by minor modifications of previously described methods. After purification on hydroxyapatite and precipitation with cetylpyridinium bromide, the DNA was sheared in a French press to give fragments with an average molecular mass of 420,000 daltons. After repeated hydroxyapatite purification and precipitation with cetylpyridinium bromide, high-pressure liquid chromatography analysis showed the presence of 2.1% RNA or less, whereas 5-methylcytosine made up 2.9% of the total deoxycytidine content. No other unusual bases could be detected. The hyperchromicity was 31 to 36%, and the melting curve in 1 X SSC (0.15 M NaCl plus 0.015 M sodium citrate) corresponded to 58.3 mol% G+C. High-pressure liquid chromatography analysis of two DNA samples gave 58.6 and 60.8 mol% G+C. The heterogeneity of the DNA was determined by reassociation of single-stranded DNA, measured spectrophotometrically. Owing to the high complexity of the DNA, the reassociation had to be carried out in 6 X SSC with 30% dimethyl sulfoxide added. Cuvettes with a 1-mm light path were used, and the A275 was read. DNA concentrations as high as 950 micrograms ml-1 could be used, and the reassociation rate of Escherichia coli DNA was increased about 4.3-fold compared with standard conditions. C0t1/2 values were determined relative to that for E. coli DNA, whereas calf thymus DNA was reassociated for comparison. Our results show that the major part of DNA isolated from the bacterial fraction of soil is very heterogeneous, with a C0t1/2 about 4,600, corresponding to about 4,000 completely different genomes of standard soil bacteria.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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
Using network analysis to explore co-occurrence patterns in soil microbial communities
Barberán, A., Bates, S. T., Casamayor, E. O., & Fierer, N. (2012) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.119 · Cited by 3,044
Bias in template-to-product ratios in multitemplate PCR
Polz, M. F., & Cavanaugh, C. M. (1998) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.64.10.3724-3730.1998 · Cited by 1,484
Garbeva, P., van Veen, J. A., & van Elsas, J. D. (2004) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.012604.135455 · Cited by 1,458
Computational Improvements Reveal Great Bacterial Diversity and High Metal Toxicity in Soil
Gans, J., Wolinsky, M., & Dunbar, J. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1112665 · Cited by 1,207
Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen
van Elsas, J. D., Chiurazzi, M., Mallon, C. A., Elhottovā, D., Krištůfek, V., & Salles, J. F. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1109326109 · Cited by 1,051
Metadata
- Authors
- Torsvik, V, Goksøyr, J., & Daae, F. L.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 782-787
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1907872891
- Cited by
- 1,740
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.56.3.782-787.1990
- The paper
- Torsvik, V, Goksøyr, J., & Daae, F. L. (1990). High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.3.782-787.1990
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.