| Title |
Advantages of functional single-cell isolation method over standard agar plate dilution method as a tool for studying denitrifying bacteria in rice paddy soil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2191-0855-2-50 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomoyasu Nishizawa, Kanako Tago, Yusuke Uei, Satoshi Ishii, Kazuo Isobe, Shigeto Otsuka, Keishi Senoo |
| Abstract |
We recently established a method for isolating functional single cells from environmental samples using a micromanipulator (Functional single-cell (FSC) isolation), and applied it to the study of denitrifying bacteria in rice paddy soil (Ashida et al. 2010. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:1211-1217). To further examine the advantages and possible disadvantages of the FSC method, we isolated denitrifying bacteria from the same rice paddy soil sample using both FSC and standard agar plate dilution (APD) methods and compared in this study. The proportion of denitrifying bacteria in the total isolates was more than 6-fold larger with FSC isolation (57.1%) compared with the APD method (9.2%). Denitrifying bacteria belonging to Alphaproteobacteria and Bacilli were commonly isolated using both methods, whereas those belonging to Betaproteobacteria, which had been found to be active in the denitrification-inductive paddy soil, were isolated only with the FSC method. On the other hand, Actinobacteria were only isolated using the APD method. The mean potential denitrification activity of the FSC isolates was higher than that of the APD isolates. Overall, FSC isolation was confirmed to be an excellent method for studying denitrifying bacteria compared with the standard agar plate dilution method. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 47% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2012.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#1,038
of 1,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,758
of 188,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,325 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.