The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phylogenetic Analysis and In Situ Identification of Bacteria Community Composition in an Acidic Sphagnum Peat Bog
Open accessAbstract
The Bacteria community composition in an acidic Sphagnum peat bog (pH 3.9 to 4.5) was characterized by a combination of 16S rRNA gene clone library analysis, rRNA-targeted fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and cultivation. Among 84 environmental 16S rRNA gene clones, a set of only 16 cloned sequences was closely related (≥95% similarity) to taxonomically described organisms. Main groups of clones were affiliated with the Acidobacteria (24 clones), Alphaproteobacteria (20), Verrucomicrobia (13), Actinobacteria (8), Deltaproteobacteria (4), Chloroflexi (3), and Planctomycetes (3). The proportion of cells that hybridized with oligonucleotide probes specific for members of the domains Bacteria (EUB338-mix) and Archaea (ARCH915 and ARC344) accounted for only 12 to 22% of the total cell counts. Up to 24% of the EUB338-positive cells could be assigned by FISH to specific bacterial phyla. Alphaproteobacteria and Planctomycetes were the most numerous bacterial groups (up to 1.3 × 10 7 and 1.1 × 10 7 cells g −1 peat, respectively). In contrast to conventional plating techniques, a novel biofilm-mediated enrichment approach allowed us to isolate some representatives of predominant Bacteria groups, such as Acidobacteria and Planctomycetes . This novel strategy has great potential to enable the isolation of a significant proportion of the peat bog bacterial diversity.
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
Cites
Coates, J. D., Ellis, D. J., Gaw, C. V., & Lovley, D. R. (1999) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/00207713-49-4-1615 · Cited by 382
Cited by
The biomass distribution on Earth
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115 · Cited by 3,723
Development of the Human Infant Intestinal Microbiota
Palmer, C., Bik, E. M., DiGiulio, D. B., Relman, D. A., & Brown, P. O. (2007) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050177 · Cited by 2,877
Microbial communities in natural and disturbed peatlands: A review
Andersen, R., Chapman, S. J., & Artz, R. R. E. (2013) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.003 · Cited by 401
Eichorst, S. A., Breznak, J. A., & Schmidt, T. M. (2007) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02140-06 · Cited by 334
Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Indo-Malayan peat swamp forests
Yule, C. M. (2010) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9510-5 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Dedysh, S. N., Pankratov, T. A., Belova, S. E., Kulichevskaya, I. S., & Liesack, W.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2110-2117
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2169188443
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.61
- 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: Phylogenetic Analysis and In Situ Identification of Bacteria Community Composition in an Acidic Sphagnum Peat Bog. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.72.3.2110-2117.2006
- The paper
- Dedysh, S. N., Pankratov, T. A., Belova, S. E., Kulichevskaya, I. S., & Liesack, W. (2006). Phylogenetic Analysis and In Situ Identification of Bacteria Community Composition in an Acidic Sphagnum Peat Bog. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.72.3.2110-2117.2006
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.