Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23259572›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2012

Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter.

Jacqueline Z-M Chan, Mihail R Halachev, Nicholas J Loman, Chrystala Constantinidou, Mark J Pallen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing 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

104 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Resolving taxonomic uncertainties in the genusFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. History of the taxonomy ofInternational journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparative Genomics and Adaptive Evolution ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Characterization of antimicrobial resistantCurrent research in food science · 2025
    Article
  14. Taxonomic refinement ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Analysis ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

44 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

5 authors.

Jacqueline Z-M ChanInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK.
Mihail R Halachev
Nicholas J Loman
Chrystala Constantinidou
Mark J Pallen

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E011179/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBE0111791Medical Research Council G0901717Medical Research Council MR/J014370/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrobial taxonomy remains a conservative discipline, relying on phenotypic information derived from growth in pure culture and techniques that are time-consuming and difficult to standardize, particularly when compared to the ease of modern high-throughput genome sequencing. Here, drawing on the genus Acinetobacter as a test case, we examine whether bacterial taxonomy could abandon phenotypic approaches and DNA-DNA hybridization and, instead, rely exclusively on analyses of genome sequence data.

resultsIn pursuit of this goal, we generated a set of thirteen new draft genome sequences, representing ten species, combined them with other publically available genome sequences and analyzed these 38 strains belonging to the genus. We found that analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences were not capable of delineating accepted species. However, a core genome phylogenetic tree proved consistent with the currently accepted taxonomy of the genus, while also identifying three misclassifications of strains in collections or databases. Among rapid distance-based methods, we found average-nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses delivered results consistent with traditional and phylogenetic classifications, whereas gene content based approaches appear to be too strongly influenced by the effects of horizontal gene transfer to agree with previously accepted species.

conclusionWe believe a combination of core genome phylogenetic analysis and ANI provides an appropriate method for bacterial species delineation, whereby bacterial species are defined as monophyletic groups of isolates with genomes that exhibit at least 95% pair-wise ANI. The proposed method is backwards compatible; it provides a scalable and uniform approach that works for both culturable and non-culturable species; is faster and cheaper than traditional taxonomic methods; is easily replicable and transferable among research institutions; and lastly, falls in line with Darwin's vision of classification becoming, as far as is possible, genealogical.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAcinetobacterBacterial Typing TechniquesClassificationGenes, BacterialGenes, rRNAGenome, BacterialGenomicsNucleic Acid HybridizationRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID23259572
PMCPMC3556118

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.