Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26830494›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Genomic and proteomic evidence supporting the division of the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum into three species.

Philippe Prior, Florent Ailloud, Beth L Dalsing, Benoit Remenant, Borja Sanchez, Caitilyn Allen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Meta-analysis of theMicrobial genomics · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. ThePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. The EPS-I exopolysaccharide transformsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring the diversity ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Horticulture research · 2024
    Article
  20. Review

31 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

6 authors.

Philippe PriorUMR PVBMT Peuplements Végétaux et Bioagresseurs en Milieu Tropical, CIRAD, Saint Pierre, La Réunion, France. philippe.prior@cirad.fr.
Florent AilloudUMR PVBMT Peuplements Végétaux et Bioagresseurs en Milieu Tropical, CIRAD, Saint Pierre, La Réunion, France. flt.ailloud@gmail.com.
Beth L DalsingDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. bldalsing@wisc.edu.
Benoit RemenantUMR PVBMT Peuplements Végétaux et Bioagresseurs en Milieu Tropical, CIRAD, Saint Pierre, La Réunion, France. remenant.benoit@gmail.com.
Borja SanchezDepartment of Plant Health and Environment (SPE), INRA, Paris, France. borja.sanchez@uvigo.es.
Caitilyn AllenDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. cza@plantpath.wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increased availability of genome sequences has advanced the development of genomic distance methods to describe bacterial diversity. Results of these fast-evolving methods are highly correlated with those of the historically standard DNA-DNA hybridization technique. However, these genomic-based methods can be done more rapidly and less expensively and are less prone to technical and human error. They are thus a technically accessible replacement for species delineation. Here, we use several genomic comparison methods, supported by our own proteomic analyses and metabolic characterization as well as previously published DNA-DNA hybridization analyses, to differentiate members of the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex into three species. This pathogen group consists of diverse and widespread strains that cause bacterial wilt disease on many different plants.

resultsWe used three different methods to compare the complete genomes of 29 strains from the R. solanacearum species complex. In parallel we profiled the proteomes of 73 strains using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS). Proteomic profiles together with genomic sequence comparisons consistently and comprehensively described the diversity of the R. solanacearum species complex. In addition, genome-driven functional phenotypic assays excitingly supported an old hypothesis (Hayward et al. (J Appl Bacteriol 69:269-80, 1990)), that closely related members of the R. solanacearum could be identified through a simple assay of anaerobic nitrate metabolism. This assay allowed us to clearly and easily differentiate phylotype II and IV strains from phylotype I and III strains. Further, genomic dissection of the pathway distinguished between proposed subspecies within the current phylotype IV. The assay revealed large scale differences in energy production within the R. solanacearum species complex, indicating coarse evolutionary distance and further supporting a repartitioning of this group into separate species.

conclusionsTogether, the results of these studies support the proposed division of the R. solanacearum species complex into three species, consistent with recent literature, and demonstrate the utility of proteomic and genomic approaches to delineate bacterial species.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialGenomicsProteomicsGenetic VariationPhylogenyPlant DiseasesRalstonia solanacearum

Identifiers

PMID26830494
PMCPMC4736150

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.