Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14660406›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2003

Comparative sequence analysis of the tuf and recA genes and restriction fragment length polymorphism of the internal transcribed spacer region sequences supply additional tools for discriminating Bifidobacterium lactis from Bifidobacterium animalis.

Marco Ventura, Ralf Zink

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Dissecting the Evolutionary Development of the SpeciesApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genomics of Actinobacteria: tracing the evolutionary history of an ancient phylum.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2007
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marco VenturaNestlé Research Center, Vers-Chez-Les-Blanc, 1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland. m.ventura@ucc.ie
Ralf Zink

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between Bifidobacterium lactis and Bifidobacterium animalis was examined by comparative analysis of tuf and recA gene sequences and by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of their internal 16S-23S transcribed spacer region sequences. The bifidobacterial strains investigated could be divided into two distinct groups within a single species based on the tuf, recA, and 16S-23S spacer region sequence analysis. Therefore, all strains of B. lactis and B. animalis could be unified as the species B. animalis and divided into two subspecies, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. animalis.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsBacterial ProteinsBacterial Typing TechniquesBase SequenceBifidobacteriumDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerHumansMolecular Sequence DataPeptide Elongation Factor TuPhylogenyRatsRec A RecombinasesBacterial ProteinsDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerPeptide Elongation Factor TuRec A RecombinasesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 23S

Identifiers

PMID14660406
PMCPMC310005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.