Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ecophysiological Interaction between Nitrifying Bacteria and Heterotrophic Bacteria in Autotrophic Nitrifying Biofilms as Determined by Microautoradiography-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization

Open access
Kindaichi, Tomonori, Ito, Tsukasa, Okabe, Satoshi·2004·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

Ecophysiological interactions between the community members (i.e., nitrifiers and heterotrophic bacteria) in a carbon-limited autotrophic nitrifying biofilm fed only NH 4+as an energy source were investigated by using a full-cycle 16S rRNA approach followed by microautoradiography (MAR)-fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Phylogenetic differentiation (identification) of heterotrophic bacteria was performed by 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, and FISH probes were designed to determine the community structure and the spatial organization (i.e., niche differentiation) in the biofilm. FISH analysis showed that this autotrophic nitrifying biofilm was composed of 50% nitrifying bacteria (ammonia-oxidizing bacteria [AOB] and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria [NOB]) and 50% heterotrophic bacteria, and the distribution was as follows: members of the alpha subclass of the class Proteobacteria(α-Proteobacteria), 23%; γ-Proteobacteria, 13%; green nonsulfur bacteria (GNSB), 9%;Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides(CFB) division, 2%; and unidentified (organisms that could not be hybridized with any probe except EUB338), 3%. These results indicated that a pair of nitrifiers (AOB and NOB) supported a heterotrophic bacterium via production of soluble microbial products (SMP). MAR-FISH revealed that the heterotrophic bacterial community was composed of bacteria that were phylogenetically and metabolically diverse and to some extent metabolically redundant, which ensured the stability of the ecosystem as a biofilm. α- and γ-Proteobacteria dominated the utilization of [14 C]acetic acid and 14 C-amino acids in this biofilm. Despite their low abundance (ca. 2%) in the biofilm community, members of the CFB cluster accounted for the largest fraction (ca. 64%) of the bacterial community consuming N-acetyl-d-[1-14 C]glucosamine (NAG). The GNSB accounted for 9% of the 14 C-amino acid-consuming bacteria and 27% of the [14 C]NAG-consuming bacteria but did not utilize [14 C]acetic acid. Bacteria classified in the unidentified group accounted for 6% of the total heterotrophic bacteria and could utilize all organic substrates, including NAG. This showed that there was an efficient food web (carbon metabolism) in the autotrophic nitrifying biofilm community, which ensured maximum utilization of SMP produced by nitrifiers and prevented buildup of metabolites or waste materials of nitrifiers to significant levels.

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.70.3.1641-1650.2004

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.

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

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Kindaichi, T., Ito, T., & Okabe, S.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2004-03
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
1641-1650
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2102740550
Cited by
368
References
0
FWCI
15.55
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: Ecophysiological Interaction between Nitrifying Bacteria and Heterotrophic Bacteria in Autotrophic Nitrifying Biofilms as Determined by Microautoradiography-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.70.3.1641-1650.2004
The paper
Kindaichi, T., Ito, T., & Okabe, S. (2004). Ecophysiological Interaction between Nitrifying Bacteria and Heterotrophic Bacteria in Autotrophic Nitrifying Biofilms as Determined by Microautoradiography-Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.70.3.1641-1650.2004

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.