Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27561606›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Software-based analysis of bacteriophage genomes, physical ends, and packaging strategies.

Bryan D Merrill, Andy T Ward, Julianne H Grose, Sandra Hope

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 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Antibacterial Efficacy ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Whole genome sequences of eightMicrobiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  11. Genomic Analysis of 96Viruses · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Diversity ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 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

4 authors.

Bryan D MerrillDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, 4007 LSB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
Andy T WardDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, 4007 LSB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
Julianne H GroseDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, 4007 LSB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
Sandra HopeDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, 4007 LSB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA. sandrahope2016@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9060-0485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhage genome analysis is a rapidly growing field. Recurrent obstacles include software access and usability, as well as genome sequences that vary in sequence orientation and/or start position. Here we describe modifications to the phage comparative genomics software program, Phamerator, provide public access to the code, and include instructions for creating custom Phamerator databases. We further report genomic analysis techniques to determine phage packaging strategies and identification of the physical ends of phage genomes.

resultsThe original Phamerator code can be successfully modified and custom databases can be generated using the instructions we provide. Results of genome map comparisons within a custom database reveal obstacles in performing the comparisons if a published genome has an incorrect complementarity or an incorrect location of the first base of the genome, which are common issues in GenBank-downloaded sequence files. To address these issues, we review phage packaging strategies and provide results that demonstrate identification of the genome start location and orientation using raw sequencing data and software programs such as PAUSE and Consed to establish the location of the physical ends of the genome. These results include determination of exact direct terminal repeats (DTRs) or cohesive ends, or whether phages may use a headful packaging strategy. Phylogenetic analysis using ClustalO and phamily circles in Phamerator demonstrate that the large terminase gene can be used to identify the phage packaging strategy and thereby aide in identifying the physical ends of the genome.

conclusionsUsing available online code, the Phamerator program can be customized and utilized to generate databases with individually selected genomes. These databases can then provide fruitful information in the comparative analysis of phages. Researchers can identify packaging strategies and physical ends of phage genomes using raw data from high-throughput sequencing in conjunction with phylogenetic analyses of large terminase proteins and the use of custom Phamerator databases. We promote publication of phage genomes in an orientation consistent with the physical structure of the phage chromosome and provide guidance for determining this structure.

Indexed as

Genome, ViralGenomicsSoftwareBacteriophagesDatabases, Nucleic AcidDNA, ViralPhylogenyUser-Computer InterfaceVirus AssemblyDNA, ViralComparative genomicsDNA packagingPhagePhameratorPhylogenetic treeSequencingTerminase

Identifiers

PMID27561606
PMCPMC5000459

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.