Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 607

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microbial Population Changes during Bioremediation of an Experimental Oil Spill

Open access
MacNaughton, Sarah J., Stephen, John R., Venosa, Albert D., Davis, Gregory A., Chang, Yun-Juan, White, David C.·1999·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Three crude oil bioremediation techniques were applied in a randomized block field experiment simulating a coastal oil spill. Four treatments (no oil control, oil alone, oil plus nutrients, and oil plus nutrients plus an indigenous inoculum) were applied. In situ microbial community structures were monitored by phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis and 16S rDNA PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) to (i) identify the bacterial community members responsible for the decontamination of the site and (ii) define an end point for the removal of the hydrocarbon substrate. The results of PLFA analysis demonstrated a community shift in all plots from primarily eukaryotic biomass to gram-negative bacterial biomass with time. PLFA profiles from the oiled plots suggested increased gram-negative biomass and adaptation to metabolic stress compared to unoiled controls. DGGE analysis of untreated control plots revealed a simple, dynamic dominant population structure throughout the experiment. This banding pattern disappeared in all oiled plots, indicating that the structure and diversity of the dominant bacterial community changed substantially. No consistent differences were detected between nutrient-amended and indigenous inoculum-treated plots, but both differed from the oil-only plots. Prominent bands were excised for sequence analysis and indicated that oil treatment encouraged the growth of gram-negative microorganisms within the α-proteobacteria and Flexibacter-Cytophaga-Bacteroides phylum. α-Proteobacteria were never detected in unoiled controls. PLFA analysis indicated that by week 14 the microbial community structures of the oiled plots were becoming similar to those of the unoiled controls from the same time point, but DGGE analysis suggested that major differences in the bacterial communities remained.

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 · 10.1128/aem.65.8.3566-3574.1999

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 607

Metadata

Authors
MacNaughton, S. J., Stephen, J. R., Venosa, A. D., Davis, G. A., Chang, Y.-J., & White, D. C.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
1999-08
Volume
65
Issue
8
Pages
3566-3574
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2110854990
Cited by
607
References
33
FWCI
22.71
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: Microbial Population Changes during Bioremediation of an Experimental Oil Spill. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.8.3566-3574.1999
The paper
MacNaughton, S. J., Stephen, J. R., Venosa, A. D., Davis, G. A., Chang, Y.-J., & White, D. C. (1999). Microbial Population Changes during Bioremediation of an Experimental Oil Spill. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.8.3566-3574.1999

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.