Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26195766›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

How clonal are Neisseria species? The epidemic clonality model revisited.

Michel Tibayrenc, Francisco J Ayala

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. In the light of evolution IX: Clonal reproduction: Alternatives to sex.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michel TibayrencInfectious Diseases and Vectors: Ecology, Genetics, Evolution and Control, Institute of Research for Development 224, CNRS 5290, Universities of Montpellier 1 and 2, 34394 Montpellier Cedex 5, France; and michel.tibayrenc@ird.fr.
Francisco J AyalaDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The three species Neisseria meningitidis, Neisseria gonorrheae, and Neisseria lactamica are often regarded as highly recombining bacteria. N. meningitidis has been considered a paradigmatic case of the "semiclonal model" or of "epidemic clonality," demonstrating occasional bouts of clonal propagation in an otherwise recombining species. In this model, occasional clonality generates linkage disequilibrium in the short term. In the long run, however, the effects of clonality are countered by recombination. We show that many data are at odds with this proposal and that N. meningitidis fits the criteria that we have proposed for predominant clonal evolution (PCE). We point out that (i) the proposed way to distinguish epidemic clonality from PCE may be faulty and (ii) the evidence of deep phylogenies by microarrays and whole-genome sequencing is at odds with the predictions of the semiclonal model. Last, we revisit the species status of N. meningitidis, N. gonorrheae, and N. lactamica in the light of the PCE model.

Indexed as

Clonal EvolutionModels, BiologicalClone CellsNeisseriaSemanticsSpecies Specificitydeep phylogenylinkage disequilibriummolecular epidemiologynear-cladepredominant clonal evolution

Identifiers

PMID26195766
PMCPMC4517260
OpenAlexW2129556224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.