The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metabolic Flexibility of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria
Open accessAbstract
Dissimilatory sulfate-reducing prokaryotes (SRB) are a very diverse group of anaerobic bacteria that are omnipresent in nature and play an imperative role in the global cycling of carbon and sulfur. In anoxic marine sediments sulfate reduction accounts for up to 50% of the entire organic mineralization in coastal and shelf ecosystems where sulfate diffuses several meters deep into the sediment. As a consequence, SRB would be expected in the sulfate-containing upper sediment layers, whereas methanogenic archaea would be expected to succeed in the deeper sulfate-depleted layers of the sediment. Where sediments are high in organic matter, sulfate is depleted at shallow sediment depths, and biogenic methane production will occur. In the absence of sulfate, many SRB ferment organic acids and alcohols, producing hydrogen, acetate, and carbon dioxide, and may even rely on hydrogen- and acetate-scavenging methanogens to convert organic compounds to methane. SRB can establish two different life styles, and these can be termed as sulfidogenic and acetogenic, hydrogenogenic metabolism. The advantage of having different metabolic capabilities is that it raises the chance of survival in environments when electron acceptors become depleted. In marine sediments, SRB and methanogens do not compete but rather complement each other in the degradation of organic matter. Also in freshwater ecosystems with sulfate concentrations of only 10-200 μM, sulfate is consumed efficiently within the top several cm of the sediments. Here, many of the δ-Proteobacteria present have the genetic machinery to perform dissimilatory sulfate reduction, yet they have an acetogenic, hydrogenogenic way of life. In this review we evaluate the physiology and metabolic mode of SRB in relation with their environment.
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
Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation
Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G., & Groisman, E. A. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35012500 · Cited by 3,816
Electron transfer in syntrophic communities of anaerobic bacteria and archaea
Stams, A. J. M., & Plugge, C. M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2166 · Cited by 1,441
Self-citationDissimilatory Sulfate- and Sulfur-Reducing Prokaryotes
Rabus, R., Hansen, T. A., & Widdel, F. (2006) · The Prokaryotes · doi:10.1007/0-387-30742-7_22 · Cited by 276
(1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9263-7_3 · Cited by 98
Cited by
Microbial pathways in colonic sulfur metabolism and links with health and disease
Carbonero, F., Benefiel, A. C., Alizadeh-Ghamsari, A. H., & Gaskins, H. R. (2012) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2012.00448 · Cited by 544
Unifying concepts in anaerobic respiration: Insights from dissimilatory sulfur metabolism
Grein, F., Ramos, A. R., Venceslau, S. S., & Pereira, I. A. C. (2013) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics · doi:10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.09.001 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Plugge, C. M., Zhang, W., Scholten, J. C. M., & Stams, A. J. M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Microbiology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 81-81
- ISSN
- 1664-302X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148579783
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Metabolic Flexibility of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00081
- The paper
- Plugge, C. M., Zhang, W., Scholten, J. C. M., & Stams, A. J. M. (2011). Metabolic Flexibility of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00081
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.