Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31937639›Full record

ArticlemBio2020

A Genus Definition for

R A Barco, G M Garrity, J J Scott, J P Amend, K H Nealson, D Emerson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 172 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
172citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

172 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 341 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. DistinguishingmSystems · 2026
    Article
  4. mBio · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Taxonomic description of a novel genus,International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genome-Based Reclassification ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cryogenic electron tomography by the numbers: Charting underexplored lineages in structural cell biology.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genome-based reassessment ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2026
    Article

112 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

R A BarcoDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA barco@usc.edu.
G M GarrityDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4465-7034
J J ScottSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republic of Panama.
J P AmendDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
K H NealsonDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
D EmersonBigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, Maine, USA.
University of Southern California · USBigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences · USMichigan State University · USSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute · PA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genus assignment is fundamental in the characterization of microbes, yet there is currently no unambiguous way to demarcate genera solely using standard genomic relatedness indices. Here, we propose an approach to demarcate genera that relies on the combined use of the average nucleotide identity, genome alignment fraction, and the distinction between type- and non-type species. More than 3,500 genomes representing type strains of species from >850 genera of either bacterial or archaeal lineages were tested. Over 140 genera were analyzed in detail within the taxonomic context of order/family. Significant genomic differences between members of a genus and type species of other genera in the same order/family were conserved in 94% of the cases. Nearly 90% (92% if polyphyletic genera are excluded) of the type strains were classified in agreement with current taxonomy. The 448 type strains that need reclassification directly impact 33% of the genera analyzed in detail. The results provide a first line of evidence that the combination of genomic indices provides added resolution to effectively demarcate genera within the taxonomic framework that is currently based on the 16S rRNA gene. We also identify the emergence of natural breakpoints at the genome level that can further help in the circumscription of taxa, increasing the proportion of directly impacted genera to at least 43% and pointing at inaccuracies on the use of the 16S rRNA gene as a taxonomic marker, despite its precision. Altogether, these results suggest that genomic coherence is an emergent property of genera in

Indexed as

Genome, ArchaealGenome, BacterialArchaeaBacteriaClassificationDNA, BacterialGenomicsPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SANIBacillusClostridiumdelineationdemarcationgenusLactobacillusPhotorhabdusPseudomonassystematicstaxonomyXenorhabdus

Identifiers

PMID31937639
PMCPMC6960282
OpenAlexW2998989016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.