Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17040564›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2006

The reach of the genome signature in prokaryotes.

Mark W J van Passel, Eiko E Kuramae, Angela C M Luyf, Aldert Bart, Teun Boekhout

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Homology-independent metrics for comparative genomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2015
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Microbial genomic taxonomy.BMC genomics · 2013
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Mobility of plasmids.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2010
    Review
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

5 authors.

Mark W J van PasselCentraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS), Uppsalalaan 8, Utrecht, The Netherlands. mvpassel@email.arizona.edu
Eiko E Kuramae
Angela C M Luyf
Aldert Bart
Teun Boekhout

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increased availability of sequenced genomes there have been several initiatives to infer evolutionary relationships by whole genome characteristics. One of these studies suggested good congruence between genome synteny, shared gene content, 16S ribosomal DNA identity, codon usage and the genome signature in prokaryotes. Here we rigorously test the phylogenetic signal of the genome signature, which consists of the genome-specific relative frequencies of dinucleotides, on 334 sequenced prokaryotic genome sequences.

resultsIntrageneric comparisons show that in general the genomic dissimilarity scores are higher than in intraspecific comparisons, in accordance with the suggested phylogenetic signal of the genome signature. Exceptions to this trend, (Bartonella spp., Bordetella spp., Salmonella spp. and Yersinia spp.), which have low average intrageneric genomic dissimilarity scores, suggest that members of these genera might be considered the same species. On the other hand, high genomic dissimilarity values for intraspecific analyses suggest that in some cases (e.g. Prochlorococcus marinus, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Buchnera aphidicola and Rhodopseudomonas palustris) different strains from the same species may actually represent different species. Comparing 16S rDNA identity with genomic dissimilarity values corroborates the previously suggested trend in phylogenetic signal, albeit that the dissimilarity values only provide low resolution.

conclusionThe genome signature has a distinct phylogenetic signal, independent of individual genetic marker genes. A reliable phylogenetic clustering cannot be based on dissimilarity values alone, as bootstrapping is not possible for this parameter. It can however be used to support or refute a given phylogeny and resulting taxonomy.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialPhylogenyBacteriaChromosomes, BacterialDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalOligodeoxyribonucleotidesRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificityDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalOligodeoxyribonucleotidesRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID17040564
PMCPMC1621082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.