Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27840430›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2017

Microbial genome-wide association studies: lessons from human GWAS.

Robert A Power, Julian Parkhill, Tulio de Oliveira

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Mapping genetic and phenotypic diversity ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article

109 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

3 authors.

Robert A PowerAfrica Centre for Population Health, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa.
Julian ParkhillWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK.
Tulio de OliveiraAfrica Centre for Population Health, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4001, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reduced costs of sequencing have led to whole-genome sequences for a large number of microorganisms, enabling the application of microbial genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Given the successes of human GWAS in understanding disease aetiology and identifying potential drug targets, microbial GWAS are likely to further advance our understanding of infectious diseases. These advances include insights into pressing global health problems, such as antibiotic resistance and disease transmission. In this Review, we outline the methodologies of GWAS, the current state of the field of microbial GWAS, and how lessons from human GWAS can direct the future of the field.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome, HumanGenome, MicrobialGenome-Wide Association StudyCommunicable DiseasesGenotypeHumans

Identifiers

PMID27840430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.