Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24706738›Full record

ArticleJournal of bacteriology2014

A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights.

Qi-Long Qin, Bin-Bin Xie, Xi-Ying Zhang, Xiu-Lan Chen, Bai-Cheng Zhou, Jizhong Zhou, Aharon Oren, Yu-Zhong Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bacteriology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 414 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
414citing 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

414 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bridging the gap:Gut microbes · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. DistinguishingmSystems · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

354 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

8 authors.

Qi-Long QinState Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Jinan, China Marine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Deep Sea Biology, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Bin-Bin XieState Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Jinan, China Marine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Deep Sea Biology, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Xi-Ying ZhangState Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Jinan, China Marine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Deep Sea Biology, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Xiu-Lan ChenState Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Jinan, China Marine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Deep Sea Biology, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Bai-Cheng ZhouMarine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Jizhong ZhouInstitute for Environmental Genomics and Department of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Aharon OrenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
Yu-Zhong ZhangState Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology, Shandong University, Jinan, China Marine Biotechnology Research Center, Shandong University, Jinan, China Collaborative Innovation Center of Deep Sea Biology, Shandong University, Jinan, China zhangyz@sdu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic information has already been applied to prokaryotic species definition and classification. However, the contribution of the genome sequence to prokaryotic genus delimitation has been less studied. To gain insights into genus definition for the prokaryotes, we attempted to reveal the genus-level genomic differences in the current prokaryotic classification system and to delineate the boundary of a genus on the basis of genomic information. The average nucleotide sequence identity between two genomes can be used for prokaryotic species delineation, but it is not suitable for genus demarcation. We used the percentage of conserved proteins (POCP) between two strains to estimate their evolutionary and phenotypic distance. A comprehensive genomic survey indicated that the POCP can serve as a robust genomic index for establishing the genus boundary for prokaryotic groups. Basically, two species belonging to the same genus would share at least half of their proteins. In a specific lineage, the genus and family/order ranks showed slight or no overlap in terms of POCP values. A prokaryotic genus can be defined as a group of species with all pairwise POCP values higher than 50%. Integration of whole-genome data into the current taxonomy system can provide comprehensive information for prokaryotic genus definition and delimitation.

Indexed as

ArchaeaBacteriaGenetic VariationGenomicsPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID24706738
PMCPMC4054180

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.