ReviewInternational journal of biological sciences2020
Contents, Construction Methods, Data Resources, and Functions Comparative Analysis of Bacteria Databases.
Review in International journal of biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation and Characterization of Two Bacteriophages InfectingMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Isolation of a VirulentCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Categorizing Sequences of Concern by Function To Better Assess Mechanisms of Microbial Pathogenesis.Infection and immunity · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many bacterial-related databases are developed to meet the researchers' needs of analysis and search for a number of bacterial information. However, these databases have different data resources, construction methods, data formats, and analysis tools. It's difficult for researchers to select appropriate databases and analysis tools to promote their researches. In the paper, we compared the contents, construction methods, data sources, update frequency, scope and scale of data, analysis tools, and features of nine famous bacterial databases: CARD, EffectiveDB, MBGD, MPD, PATRCI, PHI-base, VFDB, gcMeta and SILVA, and help researchers to better make better use of these databases. In addition, we also hope this review can help researchers develop a more comprehensive database and better tools to meet the needs of researchers.
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.