ArticleBMC genomics2018
Modeling of the GC content of the substituted bases in bacterial core genomes.
Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic AT Bias Coupled with Amino Acid Metabolism Modulates Codon Usage.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Molecular phylogenetic relationships based on chloroplast genomes of Zingiberaceae species: Insights into evolution and adaptation to extreme environments.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- A review of deep learning models for the prediction of chromatin interactions with DNA and epigenomic profiles.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- A simple stochastic model describing the evolution of genomic GC content in asexually reproducing organisms.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Xenogeneic Silencing and Bacterial Genome Evolution: Mechanisms for DNA Recognition Imply Multifaceted Roles of Xenogeneic Silencers.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Review
- Revisiting the Relationships Between Genomic G + C Content, RNA Secondary Structures, and Optimal Growth Temperature.Journal of molecular evolution · 2021Article
- Article
- Differences in Blood-derivedMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Article
- Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid.Genome research · 2019Article
- Evolution of Genomic Base Composition: From Single Cell Microbes to Multicellular Animals.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the present study was to examine the GC content of substituted bases (sbGC) in the core genomes of 35 bacterial species. Each species, or core genome, constituted genomes from at least 10 strains. We also wanted to explore whether sbGC for each strain was associated with the corresponding species' core genome GC content (cgGC). We present a simple mathematical model that estimates sbGC from cgGC. The model assumes only that the estimated sbGC is a function of cgGC proportional to fixed AT→GC (α) and GC → AT (β) mutation rates. Non-linear regression was used to estimate parameters α and β from the empirical data described above.
resultsWe found that sbGC for each strain showed a non-linear association with the corresponding cgGC with a bias towards higher GC content for most core genomes (66.3% of the strains), assuming as a null-hypothesis that sbGC should be approximately equal to cgGC. The most GC rich core genomes (i.e. approximately %GC > 60), on the other hand, exhibited slightly less GC-biased sbGC than expected. The best fitted regression model indicates that GC → AT mutation rates β = (1.91 ± 0.13) p < 0.001 are approximately (1.91/0.79) = 2.42 times as high, on average, as AT→GC α = (- 0.79 ± 0.25) p < 0.001 mutation rates. Whether the observed sbGC GC-bias for all but the most GC-rich prokaryotic species is due to selection, compensating for the GC → AT mutation bias, and/or selective neutral processes is currently debated. Residual standard error was found to be σ = 0.076 indicating estimated errors of sbGC to be approximately within ±15.2% GC (95% confidence interval) for the strains of all species in the study.
conclusionNot only did our mathematical model give reasonable estimates of sbGC it also provides further support to previous observations that mutation rates in prokaryotes exhibit a universal GC → AT bias that appears to be remarkably consistent between taxa.
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.