ArticleMolecular biology reports2020
Identification and molecular characterization of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azotobacter salinestris using ARDRA, REP, ERIC, and BOX.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biochar-based microbial fertilizer improves soil fertility and rice productivity by regulating soil nutrient-microbe-metabolite interactions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- In vitro and in vivo studies of selenium nanoparticles coated bacterial polysaccharide as anti-lung cancer agents.Microbial cell factories · 2024Article
- Characterization and diversity of nativeBiology letters · 2022Article
- Diversity of culturable bacteria endowed with antifungal metabolites biosynthetic characteristics associated with tea rhizosphere soil of Assam, India.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Azotobacter chroococcum and A. salinestris do not possess significant and distinct morphological and physiological differences and are often mistaken with each other in microbiological research. In this study, 12 isolates of Azotobacter isolated by standard protocol from soils were identified morphologically and physiologically as A. chroococcum. The isolates were more closely investigated for the molecular differentiation and diversity of A. chroococcum and A. salinestris. For this purpose, the ARDRA technique including HpaII, RsaI, and AluI restriction enzymes, and REP, ERIC, and BOX markers were used. The nifD and nifH genes were also utilized to evaluate the molecular identification of these two species. The 16S rDNA evaluation showed that only four out of the 12 isolates were identified as A. chroococcum and the rest were A. salinestris. The results revealed that HpaII was able to differentiate A. chroococcum from A. salinestris whereas RsaI and AluI were not able to separate them. Moreover, BOX and REP markers were able to differentiate between A. chroococcum and A. salinestris. However, ERIC marker and nifD and nifH genes were unable to separate these species. According to the results, HpaII restriction enzyme is suggested to save time and cost. BOX and REP markers are recommended for differentiation and clear discrimination not only between A. chroococcum and A. salinestris but also among their strains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31659690What 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.