Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26442149›Full record

ArticleNew microbes and new infections2015

The bacterial pangenome as a new tool for analysing pathogenic bacteria.

L Rouli, V Merhej, P-E Fournier, D Raoult

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in New microbes and new infections, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 165 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing 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

165 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Genomic diversity of multidrug-resistantApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Beyond the Usual Suspects: EmergingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Structure of theMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Phylogenomic and comparative genomic analyses ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Comparative pangenomics of theFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

105 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

4 authors.

L RouliAix Marseille Université, URMITE, UM63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Inserm 1095, 13005 Marseille, France.
V MerhejAix Marseille Université, URMITE, UM63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Inserm 1095, 13005 Marseille, France.
P-E FournierAix Marseille Université, URMITE, UM63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Inserm 1095, 13005 Marseille, France.
D RaoultAix Marseille Université, URMITE, UM63, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Inserm 1095, 13005 Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bacterial pangenome was introduced in 2005 and, in recent years, has been the subject of many studies. Thanks to progress in next-generation sequencing methods, the pangenome can be divided into two parts, the core (common to the studied strains) and the accessory genome, offering a large panel of uses. In this review, we have presented the analysis methods, the pangenome composition and its application as a study of lifestyle. We have also shown that the pangenome may be used as a new tool for redefining the pathogenic species. We applied this to the Escherichia coli and Shigella species, which have been a subject of controversy regarding their taxonomic and pathogenic position.

Indexed as

Bacteriabioinformatics toolscomparative genomicspangenomepathogenic species

Identifiers

PMID26442149
PMCPMC4552756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.