Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25722247›Full record

ReviewFunctional & integrative genomics2015

Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing.

Miriam Land, Loren Hauser, Se-Ran Jun, Intawat Nookaew, Michael R Leuze, Tae-Hyuk Ahn, Tatiana Karpinets, Ole Lund, Guruprased Kora, Trudy Wassenaar and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Functional & integrative genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 346 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
346citing papers in PubMed
35.7field-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

346 citing papers in PubMed, 727 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Whole-proteome structure/function prediction in UropathogenicbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

286 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Miriam LandComparative Genomics Group, Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA.
Loren Hauser
Se-Ran Jun
Intawat Nookaew
Michael R Leuze
Tae-Hyuk Ahn
Tatiana Karpinets
Ole Lund
Guruprased Kora
Trudy Wassenaar
Suresh Poudel
David W Ussery
Oak Ridge National Laboratory · USUniversity of Tennessee at Knoxville · USMolecular Microbiology and Genomics Consultants (Germany) · DETechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first two complete bacterial genome sequences were published in 1995, the science of bacteria has dramatically changed. Using third-generation DNA sequencing, it is possible to completely sequence a bacterial genome in a few hours and identify some types of methylation sites along the genome as well. Sequencing of bacterial genome sequences is now a standard procedure, and the information from tens of thousands of bacterial genomes has had a major impact on our views of the bacterial world. In this review, we explore a series of questions to highlight some insights that comparative genomics has produced. To date, there are genome sequences available from 50 different bacterial phyla and 11 different archaeal phyla. However, the distribution is quite skewed towards a few phyla that contain model organisms. But the breadth is continuing to improve, with projects dedicated to filling in less characterized taxonomic groups. The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas system provides bacteria with immunity against viruses, which outnumber bacteria by tenfold. How fast can we go? Second-generation sequencing has produced a large number of draft genomes (close to 90 % of bacterial genomes in GenBank are currently not complete); third-generation sequencing can potentially produce a finished genome in a few hours, and at the same time provide methlylation sites along the entire chromosome. The diversity of bacterial communities is extensive as is evident from the genome sequences available from 50 different bacterial phyla and 11 different archaeal phyla. Genome sequencing can help in classifying an organism, and in the case where multiple genomes of the same species are available, it is possible to calculate the pan- and core genomes; comparison of more than 2000 Escherichia coli genomes finds an E. coli core genome of about 3100 gene families and a total of about 89,000 different gene families. Why do we care about bacterial genome sequencing? There are many practical applications, such as genome-scale metabolic modeling, biosurveillance, bioforensics, and infectious disease epidemiology. In the near future, high-throughput sequencing of patient metagenomic samples could revolutionize medicine in terms of speed and accuracy of finding pathogens and knowing how to treat them.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialBacteriaBacterial ProteinsCodonGenetic VariationGenome SizeGenomicsMetagenomicsMolecular Sequence AnnotationPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNABacterial ProteinsCodon

Identifiers

PMID25722247
PMCPMC4361730
OpenAlexW2143420371

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.