Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33803862›Full record

ArticleViruses2021

A Roadmap for Genome-Based Phage Taxonomy.

Dann Turner, Andrew M Kropinski, Evelien M Adriaenssens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 385 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
385citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

385 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Novel LyticViruses · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Viruses · 2026
    Article
  10. Polyclonal emergence of virulent, multidrug-resistantApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

325 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

3 authors.

Dann TurnerDepartment of Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0249-4513
Andrew M KropinskiDepartment of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6871-6799
Evelien M AdriaenssensQuadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7UQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4826-5406

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R012490/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10353Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteriophage (phage) taxonomy has been in flux since its inception over four decades ago. Genome sequencing has put pressure on the classification system and recent years have seen significant changes to phage taxonomy. Here, we reflect on the state of phage taxonomy and provide a roadmap for the future, including the abolition of the order

Indexed as

BacteriophagesGenome, ViralPhylogenyCaudoviralesdemarcation criteriaMyoviridaephage classificationphage taxonomyPodoviridaeSiphoviridae

Identifiers

PMID33803862
PMCPMC8003253

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.