Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26531162›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Genetic diversity in the plasticity zone and the presence of the chlamydial plasmid differentiates Chlamydia pecorum strains from pigs, sheep, cattle, and koalas.

Martina Jelocnik, Nathan L Bachmann, Bernhard Kaltenboeck, Courtney Waugh, Lucy Woolford, K Natasha Speight, Amber Gillett, Damien P Higgins, Cheyne Flanagan, Garry S A Myers and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Current status and future directions ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Chlamydia in farms located in the Argentine-Brazilian-Paraguay tri-border.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Microorganisms · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genome organization and genomics inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Completing the Genome Sequence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Microorganisms · 2019
    Review
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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Martina JelocnikFaculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4558, Australia.
Nathan L BachmannFaculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4558, Australia.
Bernhard KaltenboeckDepartment of Pathobiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Courtney WaughFaculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4558, Australia.
Lucy WoolfordSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia.
K Natasha SpeightSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia.
Amber GillettAustralia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, Beerwah, QLD, 4519, Australia.
Damien P HigginsFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Cheyne FlanaganPort Macquarie Koala Hospital, Port Macquarie, NSW, 2444, Australia.
Garry S A MyersInstitute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter TimmsFaculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4558, Australia.
Adam PolkinghorneFaculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4558, Australia. apolking@usc.edu.au.
University of the Sunshine Coast · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUAuburn University · USAustralia Zoo · AUPort Macquarie Base Hospital · AUUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlamydia pecorum is a globally recognised pathogen of livestock and koalas. To date, comparative genomics of C. pecorum strains from sheep, cattle and koalas has revealed that only single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and a limited number of pseudogenes appear to contribute to the genetic diversity of this pathogen. No chlamydial plasmid has been detected in these strains despite its ubiquitous presence in almost all other chlamydial species. Genomic analyses have not previously included C. pecorum from porcine hosts. We sequenced the genome of three C. pecorum isolates from pigs with differing pathologies in order to re-evaluate the genetic differences and to update the phylogenetic relationships between C. pecorum from each of the hosts.

methodsWhole genome sequences for the three porcine C. pecorum isolates (L1, L17 and L71) were acquired using C. pecorum-specific sequence capture probes with culture-independent methods, and assembled in CLC Genomics Workbench. The pairwise comparative genomic analyses of 16 pig, sheep, cattle and koala C. pecorum genomes were performed using several bioinformatics platforms, while the phylogenetic analyses of the core C. pecorum genomes were performed with predicted recombination regions removed. Following the detection of a C. pecorum plasmid, a newly developed C. pecorum-specific plasmid PCR screening assay was used to evaluate the plasmid distribution in 227 C. pecorum samples from pig, sheep, cattle and koala hosts.

resultsThree porcine C. pecorum genomes were sequenced using C. pecorum-specific sequence capture probes with culture-independent methods. Comparative genomics of the newly sequenced porcine C. pecorum genomes revealed an increased average number of SNP differences (~11 500) between porcine and sheep, cattle, and koala C. pecorum strains, compared to previous C. pecorum genome analyses. We also identified a third copy of the chlamydial cytotoxin gene, found only in porcine C. pecorum isolates. Phylogenetic analyses clustered porcine isolates into a distinct clade, highlighting the polyphyletic origin of C. pecorum in livestock. Most surprising, we also discovered a plasmid in the porcine C. pecorum genome. Using this novel C. pecorum plasmid (pCpec) sequence, a) we developed a pCpec screening assay to evaluate the plasmid distribution in C. pecorum from different hosts; and b) to characterise the pCpec sequences from available previously sequenced C. pecorum genome data. pCpec screening showed that the pCpec is common in all hosts of C. pecorum, however not all C. pecorum strains carry pCpec.

conclusionsThis study provides further insight into the complexity of C. pecorum epidemiology and novel genomic regions that may be linked to host specificity. C. pecorum plasmid characterisation may aid in improving our understanding of C. pecorum pathogenesis across the variety of host species this animal pathogen infects.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAnimalsCattleChlamydiaChlamydia InfectionsGenome, BacterialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhascolarctidaePlasmidsSheepSwine

Identifiers

PMID26531162
PMCPMC4632680
OpenAlexW1924319534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.