ArticlePeerJ2016
Comparative analysis of prophage-like elements in Helicobacter sp. genomes.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization and Genomic Analysis of a New Phage InfectingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Review
- Clostridioides difficile phage biology and application.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021Review
- Comprehensive Scanning of Prophages inmSystems · 2021Article
- Genome-Wide Identification and Analysis of Chromosomally Integrated Putative Prophages Associated with Clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains.Current microbiology · 2021Article
- A Novel Inducible Prophage fromViruses · 2020Article
- Relating Phage Genomes toInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Genomic structure and insertion sites of Helicobacter pylori prophages from various geographical origins.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Comparative analysis of prophages inPeerJ · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prophages are regarded as one of the factors underlying bacterial virulence, genomic diversification, and fitness, and are ubiquitous in bacterial genomes. Information on Helicobacter sp. prophages remains scarce. In this study, sixteen prophages were identified and analyzed in detail. Eight of them are described for the first time. Based on a comparative genomic analysis, these sixteen prophages can be classified into four different clusters. Phylogenetic relationships of Cluster A Helicobacter prophages were investigated. Furthermore, genomes of Helicobacter prophages from Clusters B, C, and D were analyzed. Interestingly, some putative antibiotic resistance proteins and virulence factors were associated with Helicobacter prophages.
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.