Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25527841›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2014

Rooting the domain archaea by phylogenomic analysis supports the foundation of the new kingdom Proteoarchaeota.

Céline Petitjean, Philippe Deschamps, Purificación López-García, David Moreira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. DPANN Archaea and CPR Bacteria: insights into early cellular evolution?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Challenges in Assembling the Dated Tree of Life.Genome biology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Céline PetitjeanUnité d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.
Philippe DeschampsUnité d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.
Purificación López-GarcíaUnité d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.
David MoreiraUnité d'Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France david.moreira@u-psud.fr.
Écologie, Systématique et Évolution · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first 16S rRNA-based phylogenies of the Archaea showed a deep division between two groups, the kingdoms Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. This bipartite classification has been challenged by the recent discovery of new deeply branching lineages (e.g., Thaumarchaeota, Aigarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota, Korarchaeota, Parvarchaeota, Aenigmarchaeota, Diapherotrites, and Nanohaloarchaeota) which have also been given the same taxonomic status of kingdoms. However, the phylogenetic position of some of these lineages is controversial. In addition, phylogenetic analyses of the Archaea have often been carried out without outgroup sequences, making it difficult to determine if these taxa actually define lineages at the same level as the Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. We have addressed the question of the position of the root of the Archaea by reconstructing rooted archaeal phylogenetic trees using bacterial sequences as outgroup. These trees were based on commonly used conserved protein markers (32 ribosomal proteins) as well as on 38 new markers identified through phylogenomic analysis. We thus gathered a total of 70 conserved markers that we analyzed as a concatenated data set. In contrast with previous analyses, our trees consistently placed the root of the archaeal tree between the Euryarchaeota (including the Nanoarchaeota and other fast-evolving lineages) and the rest of archaeal species, which we propose to class within the new kingdom Proteoarchaeota. This implies the relegation of several groups previously classified as kingdoms (e.g., Crenarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Aigarchaeota, and Korarchaeota) to a lower taxonomic rank. In addition to taxonomic implications, this profound reorganization of the archaeal phylogeny has also consequences on our appraisal of the nature of the last archaeal ancestor, which most likely was a complex organism with a gene-rich genome.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomicsPhylogenyArchaeaArchaeal ProteinsGenome, ArchaealRNA, Ribosomal, 16SArchaeal ProteinsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SArchaeaEuryarchaeotaphylogenomicsProteoarchaeotaroot

Identifiers

PMID25527841
PMCPMC4316627
OpenAlexW2156721902

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.