The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Big Bacteria
Abstract
▪ Abstract A small number of prokaryotic species have a unique physiology or ecology related to their development of unusually large size. The biomass of bacteria varies over more than 10 orders of magnitude, from the 0.2 μm wide nanobacteria to the largest cells of the colorless sulfur bacteria, Thiomargarita namibiensis, with a diameter of 750 μm. All bacteria, including those that swim around in the environment, obtain their food molecules by molecular diffusion. Only the fastest and largest swimmers known, Thiovulum majus, are able to significantly increase their food supply by motility and by actively creating an advective flow through the entire population. Diffusion limitation generally restricts the maximal size of prokaryotic cells and provides a selective advantage for μm-sized cells at the normally low substrate concentrations in the environment. The largest heterotrophic bacteria, the 80 × 600 μm large Epulopiscium sp. from the gut of tropical fish, are presumably living in a very nutrient-rich medium. Many large bacteria contain numerous inclusions in the cells that reduce the volume of active cytoplasm. The most striking examples of competitive advantage from large cell size are found among the colorless sulfur bacteria that oxidize hydrogen sulfide to sulfate with oxygen or nitrate. The several-cm-long filamentous species can penetrate up through the ca 500-μm-thick diffusive boundary layer and may thereby reach into water containing their electron acceptor, oxygen or nitrate. By their ability to store vast quantities of both nitrate and elemental sulfur in the cells, these bacteria have become independent of the coexistence of their substrates. In fact, a close relative, T. namibiensis, can probably respire in the sulfidic mud for several months before again filling up their large vacuoles with nitrate.
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
Purcell, E. M. (1977) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.10903 · Cited by 4,360
Cited by
The energetics of genome complexity.
Lane, N., & Martin, W. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09486 · Cited by 1,289
Global distribution of microbial abundance and biomass in subseafloor sediment
Kallmeyer, J., Pockalny, R., Adhikari, R. R., Smith, D. C., & D’Hondt, S. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1203849109 · Cited by 956
Payne, J. L., Boyer, A. G., Brown, J. H., Finnegan, S., Kowalewski, M., Krause, R. A., Lyons, S. K., McClain, C. R., McShea, D. W., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806314106 · Cited by 325
3D printing of functional microrobots
Li, J., & Pumera, M. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01062f · Cited by 303
Bengtson, S., Sallstedt, T., Belivanova, V., & Whitehouse, M. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000735 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Schulz, H. N., & Jørgensen, B. B.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Microbiology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 105-137
- ISSN
- 0066-4227 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-3251
- OpenAlex
- W4241167997
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Big Bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.105
- The paper
- Schulz, H. N., & Jørgensen, B. B. (2001). Big Bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.105
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.