Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21126366›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2010

Comparative genomics of the bacterial genus Listeria: Genome evolution is characterized by limited gene acquisition and limited gene loss.

Henk C den Bakker, Craig A Cummings, Vania Ferreira, Paolo Vatta, Renato H Orsi, Lovorka Degoricija, Melissa Barker, Olga Petrauskene, Manohar R Furtado, Martin Wiedmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond H37Rv:Frontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Human Listeriosis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Prevalence and Biological Characteristics ofPolish journal of microbiology · 2023
    Article
  12. Genomic and pathogenicity islands ofFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023
    Review
  13. Antibacterial efficacy ofJournal of food science and technology · 2023
    Article
  14. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  15. Comparative Genomics ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2022
    Article
  16. Food science & nutrition · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Plasmidome ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

32 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

10 authors.

Henk C den BakkerDepartment of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. hcd5@cornell.edu
Craig A Cummings
Vania Ferreira
Paolo Vatta
Renato H Orsi
Lovorka Degoricija
Melissa Barker
Olga Petrauskene
Manohar R Furtado
Martin Wiedmann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe bacterial genus Listeria contains pathogenic and non-pathogenic species, including the pathogens L. monocytogenes and L. ivanovii, both of which carry homologous virulence gene clusters such as the prfA cluster and clusters of internalin genes. Initial evidence for multiple deletions of the prfA cluster during the evolution of Listeria indicates that this genus provides an interesting model for studying the evolution of virulence and also presents practical challenges with regard to definition of pathogenic strains.

resultsTo better understand genome evolution and evolution of virulence characteristics in Listeria, we used a next generation sequencing approach to generate draft genomes for seven strains representing Listeria species or clades for which genome sequences were not available. Comparative analyses of these draft genomes and six publicly available genomes, which together represent the main Listeria species, showed evidence for (i) a pangenome with 2,032 core and 2,918 accessory genes identified to date, (ii) a critical role of gene loss events in transition of Listeria species from facultative pathogen to saprotroph, even though a consistent pattern of gene loss seemed to be absent, and a number of isolates representing non-pathogenic species still carried some virulence associated genes, and (iii) divergence of modern pathogenic and non-pathogenic Listeria species and strains, most likely circa 47 million years ago, from a pathogenic common ancestor that contained key virulence genes.

conclusionsGenome evolution in Listeria involved limited gene loss and acquisition as supported by (i) a relatively high coverage of the predicted pan-genome by the observed pan-genome, (ii) conserved genome size (between 2.8 and 3.2 Mb), and (iii) a highly syntenic genome. Limited gene loss in Listeria did include loss of virulence associated genes, likely associated with multiple transitions to a saprotrophic lifestyle. The genus Listeria thus provides an example of a group of bacteria that appears to evolve through a loss of virulence rather than acquisition of virulence characteristics. While Listeria includes a number of species-like clades, many of these putative species include clades or strains with atypical virulence associated characteristics. This information will allow for the development of genetic and genomic criteria for pathogenic strains, including development of assays that specifically detect pathogenic Listeria strains.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularBacterial ProteinsBase SequenceBayes TheoremBiological ClocksCaco-2 CellsChromosomes, BacterialGenes, BacterialGenomicsHumansListeriaMultigene FamilyPhylogenyPlasmidsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21126366
PMCPMC3019230

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.