ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2017
Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technological and molecular profiling of lactic flora in Hamra ewe's milk cheese from the Algerian steppe.Food science of animal resources · 2026Article
- The failure and revival of closed microbial ecosystems: evidence from the shifts in microbial and chemical diversities.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Ruminant Salivary Microbes: Passenger or Player in the Rumen?Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Bacterial dynamics during the burial of starch-based bioplastic and oxo-low-density-polyethylene in compost soil.BMC microbiology · 2022Article
- CouldMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Tool and techniques study to plant microbiome current understanding and future needs: an overview.Communicative & integrative biology · 2022Review
- Review
- Hidden mycota of pine needles: Molecular signatures from PCR-DGGE and Ribosomal DNA phylogenetic characterization of novel phylotypes.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Investigation of the thermophilic mechanism in the genus Porphyrobacter by comparative genomic analysis.BMC genomics · 2018Article
- Gelatinizing oil in water and its removal via bacteria inhabiting the gels.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Capabilities and limitations of DGGE for the analysis of hydrocarbonoclastic prokaryotic communities directly in environmental samples.MicrobiologyOpen · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prokaryotic communities in pristine and oil-contaminated desert soil, seawater, and hypersaline coastal soil were analyzed using culture-dependent and culture-independent approaches. The former technique was the dilution-plating method. For the latter, total genomic DNA was extracted and the 16S rRNA genes were amplified using a universal bacterial primer pair and primer pairs specific for Actinobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, and Archaea. The amplicons were resolved using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and sequenced, and the sequences were compared to those in GenBank. The plating method offered the advantages of capturing the targeted hydrocarbonoclastic microorganisms, counting them and providing cultures for further study. However, this technique could not capture more than a total of 15 different prokaryotic taxa. Those taxa belonged predominantly to the genera Alcanivorax, Pseudoxanthomonas, Bosea, Halomonas, and Marinobacter. The individual isolates in culture consumed between 19 and 50% of the available crude oil in 10 days. Although the culture-independent approach revealed much more microbial diversity, it was not problem-free. The subdivision primers exhibited satisfactory specificity, but they failed to capture all the available taxa. The universal bacterial primer pair ignored Actinobacteria altogether, although the primer pair specific for Actinobacteria captured many of them, for example, the genera Geodermatophilus, Streptomyces, Mycobacterium, Pontimonas, Rhodococcus, Blastococcus, Kocuria, and many others. Because most researchers worldwide use universal primers for PCR, this finding should be considered critically to avoid misleading interpretations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.