ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2014
Comparative genomics of mycobacteria: some answers, yet more new questions.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interrogating the substrate specificity landscape of UvrC reveals novel insights into its non-canonical function.Biophysical journal · 2022Article
- Non-tuberculous mycobacteria immunopathogenesis: Closer than they appear. a prime of innate immunity trade-off and NTM ways into virulence.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2021Review
- Development of a Cost-Effective Line Probe Assay for Rapid Detection and Differentiation ofReports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2020Article
- Ecology and evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative genomic studies permit a genus-level perspective on the distinction between environmental mycobacteria and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, as well as a species-level assessment of genetic variability within M. tuberculosis. Both of these strata of evolutionary analysis serve to generate hypotheses regarding the genomic basis of M. tuberculosis virulence. In contrasting lessons from macroevolutionary study and microevolutionary study, one can form predictions about which segments of the genome are likely to be essential for or dispensable for the pathogenesis of tuberculosis. Although some of these predictions have been experimentally verified, notable exceptions challenge the direct link between these virulence factors and the capacity of M. tuberculosis to successfully cause disease and propagate between human hosts. These unexpected findings serve as the stimulus for further studies, using genomic comparisons and other approaches, to better define the remarkable success of this recalcitrant pathogen.
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.