ArticleBMC genomics2015
Using the taxon-specific genes for the taxonomic classification of bacterial genomes.
Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two ferric uptake regulator proteins inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Whole genome sequence and comparative genomic analysis of novel Rickettsia koreansis strain CNH17-7 isolated from human.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- TRGdb: a universal resource for the exploration of taxonomically restricted genes in bacteria.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Article
- The effect of taxonomic classification by full-length 16S rRNA sequencing with a synthetic long-read technology.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Phylogenomics Reveals Clear Cases of Misclassification and Genus-Wide Phylogenetic Markers for Acinetobacter.Genome biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Translational utility of a hierarchical classification strategy in biomolecular data analytics.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Reclassification of the taxonomic status of SEMIA3007 isolated in Mexico B-11A Mex as Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viceae by bioinformatic tools.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
- Gene content dissimilarity for subclassification of highly similar microbial strains.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Metagenomic Analysis of Hot Springs in Central India Reveals Hydrocarbon Degrading Thermophiles and Pathways Essential for Survival in Extreme Environments.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe correct taxonomic assignment of bacterial genomes is a primary and challenging task. With the availability of whole genome sequences, the gene content based approaches appear promising in inferring the bacterial taxonomy. The complete genome sequencing of a bacterial genome often reveals a substantial number of unique genes present only in that genome which can be used for its taxonomic classification.
resultsIn this study, we have proposed a comprehensive method which uses the taxon-specific genes for the correct taxonomic assignment of existing and new bacterial genomes. The taxon-specific genes identified at each taxonomic rank have been successfully used for the taxonomic classification of 2,342 genomes present in the NCBI genomes, 36 newly sequenced genomes, and 17 genomes for which the complete taxonomy is not yet known. This approach has been implemented for the development of a tool 'Microtaxi' which can be used for the taxonomic assignment of complete bacterial genomes.
conclusionThe taxon-specific gene based approach provides an alternate valuable methodology to carry out the taxonomic classification of newly sequenced or existing bacterial genomes.
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.