ArticleBMC genomics2019
A high-resolution genomic composition-based method with the ability to distinguish similar bacterial organisms.
Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of data driven models to accurately estimate density of fatty acid ethyl esters.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MALDI-TOF as a powerful tool for identifying and differentiating closely related microorganisms: the strange case of three reference strains of Paenibacillus polymyxa.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Constructing metagenome-assembled genomes for almost all components in a real bacterial consortium for binning benchmarking.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- FRAGTE2: An Enhanced Algorithm to Pre-Select Closely Related Genomes for Bacterial Species Demarcation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Genomic evolution of the class Acidithiobacillia: deep-branching Proteobacteria living in extreme acidic conditions.The ISME journal · 2021Article
- A completeness-independent method for pre-selection of closely related genomes for species delineation in prokaryotes.BMC genomics · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic composition has been found to be species specific and is used to differentiate bacterial species. To date, almost no published composition-based approaches are able to distinguish between most closely related organisms, including intra-genus species and intra-species strains. Thus, it is necessary to develop a novel approach to address this problem.
resultsHere, we initially determine that the "tetranucleotide-derived z-value Pearson correlation coefficient" (TETRA) approach is representative of other published statistical methods. Then, we devise a novel method called "Tetranucleotide-derived Z-value Manhattan Distance" (TZMD) and compare it with the TETRA approach. Our results show that TZMD reflects the maximal genome difference, while TETRA does not in most conditions, demonstrating in theory that TZMD provides improved resolution. Additionally, our analysis of real data shows that TZMD improves species differentiation and clearly differentiates similar organisms, including similar species belonging to the same genospecies, subspecies and intraspecific strains, most of which cannot be distinguished by TETRA. Furthermore, TZMD is able to determine clonal strains with the TZMD = 0 criterion, which intrinsically encompasses identical composition, high average nucleotide identity and high percentage of shared genomes.
conclusionsOur extensive assessment demonstrates that TZMD has high resolution. This study is the first to propose a composition-based method for differentiating bacteria at the strain level and to demonstrate that composition is also strain specific. TZMD is a powerful tool and the first easy-to-use approach for differentiating clonal and non-clonal strains. Therefore, as the first composition-based algorithm for strain typing, TZMD will facilitate bacterial studies in the future.
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.