Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28800585›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Comparative pathogenomics of Clostridium tetani.

Jonathan E Cohen, Rong Wang, Rong-Fong Shen, Wells W Wu, James E Keller

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Characterization of a Highly ToxigenicVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Rapid Detection ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  16. Comparative Genomics ofMicroorganisms · 2022
    Article
  17. Regulation ofToxins · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan E CohenLaboratory of Respiratory and Special Pathogens, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Rong WangFacility for Biotechnology Resources, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Rong-Fong ShenFacility for Biotechnology Resources, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1963-4033
Wells W WuFacility for Biotechnology Resources, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
James E KellerLaboratory of Respiratory and Special Pathogens, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-8421
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clostridium tetani and Clostridium botulinum produce two of the most potent neurotoxins known, tetanus neurotoxin and botulinum neurotoxin, respectively. Extensive biochemical and genetic investigation has been devoted to identifying and characterizing various C. botulinum strains. Less effort has been focused on studying C. tetani likely because recently sequenced strains of C. tetani show much less genetic diversity than C. botulinum strains and because widespread vaccination efforts have reduced the public health threat from tetanus. Our aim was to acquire genomic data on the U.S. vaccine strain of C. tetani to better understand its genetic relationship to previously published genomic data from European vaccine strains. We performed high throughput genomic sequence analysis on two wild-type and two vaccine C. tetani strains. Comparative genomic analysis was performed using these and previously published genomic data for seven other C. tetani strains. Our analysis focused on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and four distinct constituents of the mobile genome (mobilome): a hypervariable flagellar glycosylation island region, five conserved bacteriophage insertion regions, variations in three CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas (CRISPR-associated) systems, and a single plasmid. Intact type IA and IB CRISPR/Cas systems were within 10 of 11 strains. A type IIIA CRISPR/Cas system was present in two strains. Phage infection histories derived from CRISPR-Cas sequences indicate C. tetani encounters phages common among commensal gut bacteria and soil-borne organisms consistent with C. tetani distribution in nature. All vaccine strains form a clade distinct from currently sequenced wild type strains when considering variations in these mobile elements. SNP, flagellar glycosylation island, prophage content and CRISPR/Cas phylogenic histories provide tentative evidence suggesting vaccine and wild type strains share a common ancestor.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGenome, BacterialPhylogenyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideBacterial ProteinsBacteriophagesBase SequenceChromosome MappingClostridium tetaniGenomic IslandsGlycosylationMetalloendopeptidasesPlasmidsSequence Analysis, DNATetanus ToxinTetanus ToxoidBacterial ProteinsMetalloendopeptidasestetanospasminTetanus ToxinTetanus Toxoid

Identifiers

PMID28800585
PMCPMC5553647
OpenAlexW2744531729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.