ArticlePloS one2014
Francisella tularensis Subtype A.II Genomic Plasticity in Comparison with Subtype A.I.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spermidine biosynthesis by hypervirulentJournal of bacteriology · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of protective immunity againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Arginine Catabolism and Polyamine Biosynthesis Pathway Disparities WithinFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Identification of an Attenuated Substrain ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Differences in Blood-derivedMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Using affinity propagation clustering for identifying bacterial clades and subclades with whole-genome sequences of Francisella tularensis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Rapid Identification and Characterization of Francisella by Molecular Biology and Other Techniques.The open microbiology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Francisella tularensis is considered a monomorphic intracellular pathogen, molecular genotyping and virulence studies have demonstrated important differences within the tularensis subspecies (type A). To evaluate genetic variation within type A strains, sequencing and assembly of a new subtype A.II genome was achieved for comparison to other completed F. tularensis type A genomes. In contrast with the F. tularensis A.I strains (SCHU S4, FSC198, NE061598, and TI0902), substantial genomic variation was observed between the newly sequenced F. tularensis A.II strain (WY-00W4114) and the only other publically available A.II strain (WY96-3418). Genome differences between WY-00W4114 and WY96-3418 included three major chromosomal translocations, 1580 indels, and 286 nucleotide substitutions of which 159 were observed in predicted open reading frames and 127 were located in intergenic regions. The majority of WY-00W4114 nucleotide deletions occurred in intergenic regions, whereas most of the insertions and substitutions occurred in predicted genes. Of the nucleotide substitutions, 48 (30%) were synonymous and 111 (70%) were nonsynonymous. WY-00W4114 and WY96-3418 nucleotide polymorphisms were predominantly G/C to A/T allelic mutations, with WY-00W4114 having more A+T enrichment. In addition, the A.II genomes contained a considerably higher number of intact genes and longer repetitive sequences, including transposon remnants than the A.I genomes. Together these findings support the premise that F. tularensis A.II may have a fitness advantage compared to the A.I subtype due to the higher abundance of functional genes and repeated chromosomal sequences. A better understanding of the selective forces driving F. tularensis genetic diversity and plasticity is needed.
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.