ArticleF1000Research2013
Bayesian prediction of microbial oxygen requirement.
Article in F1000Research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Enhanced identification of key bacterial motility genes via a cross-species genomic hybrid feature machine learning approach.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Noncanonical genetic markers resolve the pre-GOE emergence of aerobic bacteria in Earth's history.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- From genotype to phenotype: computational approaches for inferring microbial traits relevant to the food industry.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- Exploring the functional composition of the human microbiome using a hand-curated microbial trait database.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- The penile microbiota of Black South African men: relationship with human papillomavirus and HIV infection.BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- Ecosystem-wide metagenomic binning enables prediction of ecological niches from genomes.Communications biology · 2020Article
- The Penile Microbiota in Uncircumcised and Circumcised Men: Relationships With HIV and Human Papillomavirus Infections and Cervicovaginal Microbiota.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrediction of the optimal habitat conditions for a given bacterium, based on genome sequence alone would be of value for scientific as well as industrial purposes. One example of such a habitat adaptation is the requirement for oxygen. In spite of good genome data availability, there have been only a few prediction attempts of bacterial oxygen requirements, using genome sequences. Here, we describe a method for distinguishing aerobic, anaerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria, based on genome sequence-derived input, using naive Bayesian inference. In contrast, other studies found in literature only demonstrate the ability to distinguish two classes at a time.
resultsThe results shown in the present study are as good as or better than comparable methods previously described in the scientific literature, with an arguably simpler method, when results are directly compared. This method further compares the performance of a single-step naive Bayesian prediction of the three included classifications, compared to a simple Bayesian network with two steps. A two-step network, distinguishing first respiring from non-respiring organisms, followed by the distinction of aerobe and facultative anaerobe organisms within the respiring group, is found to perform best.
conclusionsA simple naive Bayesian network based on the presence or absence of specific protein domains within a genome is an effective and easy way to predict bacterial habitat preferences, such as oxygen requirement.
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.