Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33829127›Full record

ReviewOne health outlook2020

Typing methods based on whole genome sequencing data.

Laura Uelze, Josephine Grützke, Maria Borowiak, Jens Andre Hammerl, Katharina Juraschek, Carlus Deneke, Simon H Tausch, Burkhard Malorny

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health outlook, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

121 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prediction of genetic relatedness ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Typing ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article

61 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

8 authors.

Laura UelzeDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Josephine GrützkeDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Maria BorowiakDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Jens Andre HammerlDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Katharina JuraschekDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Carlus DenekeDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Simon H TauschDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
Burkhard MalornyDepartment for Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, Max-Dohrn Straße 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3363-8225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of foodborne pathogens has become an effective method for investigating the information contained in the genome sequence of bacterial pathogens. In addition, its highly discriminative power enables the comparison of genetic relatedness between bacteria even on a sub-species level. For this reason, WGS is being implemented worldwide and across sectors (human, veterinary, food, and environment) for the investigation of disease outbreaks, source attribution, and improved risk characterization models. In order to extract relevant information from the large quantity and complex data produced by WGS, a host of bioinformatics tools has been developed, allowing users to analyze and interpret sequencing data, starting from simple gene-searches to complex phylogenetic studies. Depending on the research question, the complexity of the dataset and their bioinformatics skill set, users can choose between a great variety of tools for the analysis of WGS data. In this review, we describe the relevant approaches for phylogenomic studies for outbreak studies and give an overview of selected tools for the characterization of foodborne pathogens based on WGS data. Despite the efforts of the last years, harmonization and standardization of typing tools are still urgently needed to allow for an easy comparison of data between laboratories, moving towards a one health worldwide surveillance system for foodborne pathogens.

Indexed as

Bioinformatics toolsComparisonMethodsTypingWhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID33829127
PMCPMC7993478

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.