Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19946133›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR2009

Mapping the tree of life: progress and prospects.

Norman R Pace

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing 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

110 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Targeted isolation of HNature protocols · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Phylogenomic Tree Reconstruction from Bacterial Genomes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The evolution of the tree of life.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Norman R PaceDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0347, USA. nrpace@colorado.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intent of this article is to provide a critical assessment of our current understanding of life's phylogenetic diversity. Phylogenetic comparison of gene sequences is a natural way to identify microorganisms and can also be used to infer the course of evolution. Three decades of molecular phylogenetic studies with various molecular markers have provided the outlines of a universal tree of life (ToL), the three-domain pattern of archaea, bacteria, and eucarya. The sequence-based perspective on microbial identification additionally opened the way to the identification of environmental microbes without the requirement for culture, particularly through analysis of rRNA gene sequences. Environmental rRNA sequences, which now far outnumber those from cultivars, expand our knowledge of the extent of microbial diversity and contribute increasingly heavily to the emerging ToL. Although the three-domain structure of the ToL is established, the deep phylogenetic structure of each of the domains remains murky and sometimes controversial. Obstacles to accurate inference of deep phylogenetic relationships are both systematic, in molecular phylogenetic calculations, and practical, due to a paucity of sequence representation for many groups of organisms.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaBiodiversityEukaryotaGenetic VariationGenomeHumansRNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal

Identifiers

PMID19946133
PMCPMC2786576

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.