The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analysis of BIOLOG GN Substrate Utilization Patterns by Microbial Communities
Open accessAbstract
BIOLOG GN plates are increasingly used to characterize microbial communities by determining the ability of the communities to oxidize various carbon sources. Studies were done to determine whether the BIOLOG GN plate assay accurately reflects the catabolic potential of the inoculum used. To gain insight into which populations of microbial communities contribute to the BIOLOG patterns, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) were used to assess the diversity of ribotypes in the inocula and individual wells of BIOLOG plates following incubation. These studies were done with microbial communities from the rhizosphere of potatoes and an activated sludge reactor fed with glucose and peptone. TGGE analyses of BIOLOG wells inoculated with cell suspensions from the potato rhizosphere revealed that, compared with the inoculum, there was a decrease in the number of 16S rRNA gene fragments obtained from various wells, as well as a concomitant loss of populations that had been numerically dominant in the inoculum. The dominant fragments in TGGE gels could be assigned to the γ subclass of the class Proteobacteria , suggesting that fast-growing bacteria adapted to high substrate concentrations were numerically dominant in the wells and may have been primarily responsible for the patterns of substrate use that were observed. Similarly, the community structure changed in wells inoculated with cells from activated sludge; one or more populations were enriched, but all dominant populations of the inoculum could be detected in at least one well. This study showed that carbon source utilization profiles obtained with BIOLOG GN plates do not necessarily reflect the functional potential of the numerically dominant members of the microbial community used as the inoculum.
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
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
Gunatilaka, A. A. L. (2006) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np058128n · Cited by 1,032
Campbell, C. D., Chapman, S. J., Cameron, C. M., Davidson, M. S., & Potts, J. M. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.6.3593-3599.2003 · Cited by 854
Bending, G. D., Turner, M. K., & Jones, J. E. (2002) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00040-8 · Cited by 353
Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects
Naeem, S., Hahn, D. R., & Schuurman, G. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001568 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Smalla, K., Wachtendorf, U., Heuer, H., Liu, W.-T., & Forney, L.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1220-1225
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2129867161
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.32
- 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: Analysis of BIOLOG GN Substrate Utilization Patterns by Microbial Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.64.4.1220-1225.1998
- The paper
- Smalla, K., Wachtendorf, U., Heuer, H., Liu, W.-T., & Forney, L. (1998). Analysis of BIOLOG GN Substrate Utilization Patterns by Microbial Communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.64.4.1220-1225.1998
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.