Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26435255›Full record

ReviewEcoSal Plus2015

The "Cryptic" Escherichia.

Seth T Walk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EcoSal Plus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Antimicrobial Resistance and Phylo-Groups ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. No evidence of multidrug-resistantMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Observational
  6. New diagnostic methods forFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Comparative genomic and phenotypic description ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Draft genome sequences ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2024
    Article
  17. Genomic dissection ofISME communications · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Seth T Walk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2009, five monophyletic Escherichia clades were described and referred to as "cryptic" based on the inability to distinguish them from representative E. coli isolates using diagnostic biochemical reactions. Since this original publication, a number of studies have explored the genomic, transcriptomic, and phenotypic diversity of cryptic clade isolates to better understand their phylogenetic, physiological, and ecological distinctiveness with respect to previously named Escherichia species. This chapter reviews the original discovery of the cryptic clades, discusses available evidence that some are environmentally adapted, and evaluates current support for taxonomic designations of these microorganisms. The importance of these clades to clinical research, epidemiology, population genetics, and microbial speciation is also discussed.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiodiversityDrug Resistance, MicrobialEcosystemEscherichiaEscherichia coliGene Expression ProfilingHumansPhylogenySalmonellaVirulence FactorsVirulence Factors

Identifiers

PMID26435255
PMCPMC11575852

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.