ArticleBMC genomics2014
Prophage-like elements present in Mycobacterium genomes.
Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic survey reveals no detectable bacteriophage activity in Mycobacterium bovis across a large population.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2025Article
- Common Features of Environmental Mycobacterium chelonae from Colorado Using Partial and Whole Genomic Sequence Analyses.Current microbiology · 2024Article
- DEPhT: a novel approach for efficient prophage discovery and precise extraction.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Clostridioides difficile phage biology and application.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- Increased whiB7 expression and antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium chelonae carrying two prophages.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Extracellular DNA of slow growers of mycobacteria and its contribution to biofilm formation and drug tolerance.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genome-Wide Identification and Analysis of Chromosomally Integrated Putative Prophages Associated with Clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains.Current microbiology · 2021Article
- ComprehensiveMicrobial genomics · 2021Article
- Prophage GeneFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Complete Genome Sequence of OvineMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Characterization of integrated prophages within diverse species of clinical nontuberculous mycobacteria.Virology journal · 2020Article
- Comparative analysis of prophages inPeerJ · 2017Article
- Benefits of Genomic Insights and CRISPR-Cas Signatures to Monitor Potential Pathogens across Drinking Water Production and Distribution Systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Gene and whole genome analyses reveal that the mycobacterial strain JS623 is not a member of the species Mycobacterium smegmatis.Microbial biotechnology · 2016Article
- Article
- Novel Moraxella catarrhalis prophages display hyperconserved non-structural genes despite their genomic diversity.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- Smooth Tubercle Bacilli: Neglected Opportunistic Tropical Pathogens.Frontiers in public health · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProphages, integral components of many bacterial genomes, play significant roles in cognate host bacteria, such as virulence, toxin biosynthesis and secretion, fitness cost, genomic variations, and evolution. Many prophages and prophage-like elements present in sequenced bacterial genomes, such as Bifidobacteria, Lactococcus and Streptococcus, have been described. However, information for the prophage of Mycobacterium remains poorly defined.
resultsIn this study, based on the search of the complete genome database from GenBank, the Whole Genome Shotgun (WGS) databases, and some published literatures, thirty-three prophages were described in detail. Eleven of them were full-length prophages, and others were prophage-like elements. Eleven prophages were firstly revealed. They were phiMAV_1, phiMAV_2, phiMmcs_1, phiMmcs_2, phiMkms_1, phiMkms_2, phiBN42_1, phiBN44_1, phiMCAN_1, phiMycsm_1, and phiW7S_1. Their genomes and gene contents were firstly analyzed. Furthermore, comparative genomics analyses among mycobacterioprophages showed that full-length prophage phi172_2 belonged to mycobacteriophage Cluster A and the phiMmcs_1, phiMkms_1, phiBN44_1, and phiMCAN_1 shared high homology and could be classified into one group.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first systematic characterization of mycobacterioprophages, their genomic organization and phylogeny. This information will afford more understanding of the biology of Mycobacterium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.