Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25566316›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2014

Molecular signatures and phylogenomic analysis of the genus Burkholderia: proposal for division of this genus into the emended genus Burkholderia containing pathogenic organisms and a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov. harboring environmental species.

Amandeep Sawana, Mobolaji Adeolu, Radhey S Gupta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
39.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

223 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 467 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic diversity of culturableMicrobial genomics · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

163 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amandeep SawanaDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, McMaster University Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mobolaji AdeoluDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, McMaster University Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Radhey S GuptaDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, McMaster University Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Hamilton Health Sciences · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genus Burkholderia contains large number of diverse species which include many clinically important organisms, phytopathogens, as well as environmental species. However, currently, there is a paucity of biochemical or molecular characteristics which can reliably distinguish different groups of Burkholderia species. We report here the results of detailed phylogenetic and comparative genomic analyses of 45 sequenced species of the genus Burkholderia. In phylogenetic trees based upon concatenated sequences for 21 conserved proteins as well as 16S rRNA gene sequence based trees, members of the genus Burkholderia grouped into two major clades. Within these main clades a number of smaller clades including those corresponding to the clinically important Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) and the Burkholderia pseudomallei groups were also clearly distinguished. Our comparative analysis of protein sequences from Burkholderia spp. has identified 42 highly specific molecular markers in the form of conserved sequence indels (CSIs) that are uniquely found in a number of well-defined groups of Burkholderia spp. Six of these CSIs are specific for a group of Burkholderia spp. (referred to as Clade I in this work) which contains all clinically relevant members of the genus (viz. the BCC and the B. pseudomallei group) as well as the phytopathogenic Burkholderia spp. The second main clade (Clade II), which is composed of environmental Burkholderia species, is also distinguished by 2 identified CSIs that are specific for this group. Additionally, our work has also identified multiple CSIs that serve to clearly demarcate a number of smaller groups of Burkholderia spp. including 3 CSIs that are specific for the B. cepacia complex, 4 CSIs that are uniquely found in the B. pseudomallei group, 5 CSIs that are specific for the phytopathogenic Burkholderia spp. and 22 other CSI that distinguish two groups within Clade II. The described molecular markers provide highly specific means for the demarcation of different groups of Burkholderia spp. and they also offer novel and useful targets for the development of diagnostic assays for the clinically important members of the BCC or the pseudomallei groups. Based upon the results of phylogenetic analyses, the identified CSIs and the pathogenicity profile of Burkholderia species, we are proposing a division of the genus Burkholderia into two genera. In this new proposal, the emended genus Burkholderia will correspond to the Clade I and it will contain only the clinically relevant and phytopathogenic Burkholderia species. All other Burkholderia spp., which are primarily environmental, will be transferred to a new genus Paraburkholderia gen. nov.

Indexed as

BurkholderiaBurkholderia cepacia complexconserved signature indelsmolecular signaturesphylogenetic trees

Identifiers

PMID25566316
PMCPMC4271702
OpenAlexW2007610885

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.