ArticleGenome biology and evolution2018
Two Groups of Cocirculating, Epidemic Clostridiodes difficile Strains Microdiversify through Different Mechanisms.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diversity, Dynamics and Therapeutic Application ofViruses · 2022Review
- Higher genome variability within metabolism genes associates with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Origin, genomic diversity and microevolution of theMicrobial genomics · 2020Article
- First genotypic characterization of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in Lithuanian hospitals reveals the prevalence of the hypervirulent ribotype 027/ST1.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
- Genomics of the Pathogenic Clostridia.Microbiology spectrum · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clostridiodes difficile strains from the NAPCR1/ST54 and NAP1/ST01 types have caused outbreaks despite of their notable differences in genome diversity. By comparing whole genome sequences of 32 NAPCR1/ST54 isolates and 17 NAP1/ST01 recovered from patients infected with C. difficile we assessed whether mutation, homologous recombination (r) or nonhomologous recombination (NHR) through lateral gene transfer (LGT) have differentially shaped the microdiversification of these strains. The average number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in coding sequences (NAPCR1/ST54 = 24; NAP1/ST01 = 19) and SNP densities (NAPCR1/ST54 = 0.54/kb; NAP1/ST01 = 0.46/kb) in the NAPCR1/ST54 and NAP1/ST01 isolates was comparable. However, the NAP1/ST01 isolates showed 3× higher average dN/dS rates (8.35) that the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (2.62). Regarding r, whereas 31 of the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates showed 1 recombination block (3,301-8,226 bp), the NAP1/ST01 isolates showed no bases in recombination. As to NHR, the pangenome of the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates was larger (4,802 gene clusters, 26% noncore genes) and more heterogeneous (644 ± 33 gene content changes) than that of the NAP1/ST01 isolates (3,829 gene clusters, ca. 6% noncore genes, 129 ± 37 gene content changes). Nearly 55% of the gene content changes seen among the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (355 ± 31) were traced back to MGEs with putative genes for antimicrobial resistance and virulence factors that were only detected in single isolates or isolate clusters. Congruently, the LGT/SNP rate calculated for the NAPCR1/ST54 isolates (26.8 ± 2.8) was 4× higher than the one obtained for the NAP1/ST1 isolates (6.8 ± 2.0). We conclude that NHR-LGT has had a greater role in the microdiversification of the NAPCR1/ST54 strains, opposite to the NAP1/ST01 strains, where mutation is known to play a more prominent role.
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.