Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22064560›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2011

Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria.

John P McCutcheon, Nancy A Moran

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 801 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
801citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

801 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. InferiorMicrobial genomics · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The historical domestication of aProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Magnetotaxis in an anaerobic ciliate via tripartite syntrophy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

741 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

2 authors.

John P McCutcheonUniversity of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences, 32 Campus Drive, HS104, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA. john.mccutcheon@umontana.edu
Nancy A Moran

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2006, numerous cases of bacterial symbionts with extraordinarily small genomes have been reported. These organisms represent independent lineages from diverse bacterial groups. They have diminutive gene sets that rival some mitochondria and chloroplasts in terms of gene numbers and lack genes that are considered to be essential in other bacteria. These symbionts have numerous features in common, such as extraordinarily fast protein evolution and a high abundance of chaperones. Together, these features point to highly degenerate genomes that retain only the most essential functions, often including a considerable fraction of genes that serve the hosts. These discoveries have implications for the concept of minimal genomes, the origins of cellular organelles, and studies of symbiosis and host-associated microbiota.

Indexed as

Bacterial Physiological PhenomenaGenome, BacterialGenome SizeSequence DeletionSymbiosisEvolution, MolecularModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID22064560

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.