ArticleBMC research notes2015
A comparison of the protein-coding genomes of two green sulphur bacteria, Chlorobium tepidum TLS and Pelodictyon phaeoclathratiforme BU-1.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the protein-coding genomes of three deep-sea, sulfur-oxidising bacteria: "Candidatus Ruthia magnifica", "Candidatus Vesicomyosocius okutanii" and Thiomicrospira crunogena.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Comparison of the protein-coding gene content of Chlamydia trachomatis and Protochlamydia amoebophila using a Raspberry Pi computer.BMC research notes · 2015Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChlorobium tepidum and Pelodictyon phaeoclathratiforme are organisms within the green sulphur bacteria family, Chlorobiaceae, occupying very different habitats. It has recently been proposed that the genera Chlorobium and Pelodictyon are synonymous.
resultsTo investigate generic boundaries for the two species, protein families were predicted computationally based on sequence similarity across the genome-wide protein sets of Chlorobium tepidum TLS and Pelodictyon phaeoclathratiforme BU-1. The distribution of the resulting protein families across the two species was summarized. The largest number of families exhibited 1:1 putative orthology between the two species (1468 families). Of families unique to one of the species, the largest number was unique to P. phaeoclathratiforme (113 families), of which the largest family contained pentapeptide repeat proteins (16 proteins). Families unique to P. phaeoclathratiforme also included a family of gas vesicle synthesis proteins (four proteins). Although only seven families were identified as containing paralogous proteins in both species (with two or more proteins in each species), this group included families of major biochemical importance. One such family, with three members in each species, contained magnesium chelatase, an enzyme involved in the chlorophyll biosynthetic pathway.
conclusionThe unique protein family groups in both C. tepidum and P. phaeoclathratiforme mirror the occupancy of different environments, while key shared family groups provide evidence for a common origin for the species, as previously suggested in the literature. The current study only uses sequence similarity-based protein families for the two species. This, alone, does not permit a firm conclusion to be drawn on the taxonomic question, of whether the two species belong in one genus or two.
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.