Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Numerical Analysis of Grassland Bacterial Community Structure under Different Land Management Regimens by Using 16S Ribosomal DNA Sequence Data and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Banding Patterns

Open access
McCaig, Allison E., Glover, L. Anne, Prosser, James I.·2001·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Bacterial diversity in unimproved and improved grassland soils was assessed by PCR amplification of bacterial 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) from directly extracted soil DNA, followed by sequencing of ∼45 16S rDNA clones from each of three unimproved and three improved grassland samples (A. E. McCaig, L. A. Glover, and J. I. Prosser, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:1721–1730, 1999) or by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) of total amplification products. Semi-improved grassland soils were analyzed only by DGGE. No differences between communities were detected by calculation of diversity indices and similarity coefficients for clone data (possibly due to poor coverage). Differences were not observed between the diversities of individual unimproved and improved grassland DGGE profiles, although considerable spatial variation was observed among triplicate samples. Semi-improved grassland samples, however, were less diverse than the other grassland samples and had much lower within-group variation. DGGE banding profiles obtained from triplicate samples pooled prior to analysis indicated that there was less evenness in improved soils, suggesting that selection for specific bacterial groups occurred. Analysis of DGGE profiles by canonical variate analysis but not by principal-coordinate analysis, using unweighted data (considering only the presence and absence of bands) and weighted data (considering the relative intensity of each band), demonstrated that there were clear differences between grasslands, and the results were not affected by weighting of data. This study demonstrated that quantitative analysis of data obtained by community profiling methods, such as DGGE, can reveal differences between complex microbial communities.

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.67.10.4554-4559.2001

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
McCaig, A. E., Glover, L. A., & Prosser, J. I.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2001-10
Volume
67
Issue
10
Pages
4554-4559
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2082898027
Cited by
286
References
34
FWCI
15.46
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: Numerical Analysis of Grassland Bacterial Community Structure under Different Land Management Regimens by Using 16S Ribosomal DNA Sequence Data and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Banding Patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.67.10.4554-4559.2001
The paper
McCaig, A. E., Glover, L. A., & Prosser, J. I. (2001). Numerical Analysis of Grassland Bacterial Community Structure under Different Land Management Regimens by Using 16S Ribosomal DNA Sequence Data and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Banding Patterns. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.67.10.4554-4559.2001

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.