Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34038432›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Genomic GC content drifts downward in most bacterial genomes.

Bert Ely

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genome-guided characterization ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genomes of NovelApplied and environmental microbiology · 2021
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bert ElyDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2768-2940
University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In every kingdom of life, GC->AT transitions occur more frequently than any other type of mutation due to the spontaneous deamination of cytidine. In eukaryotic genomes, this slow loss of GC base pairs is counteracted by biased gene conversion which increases genomic GC content as part of the recombination process. However, this type of biased gene conversion has not been observed in bacterial genomes, so we hypothesized that GC->AT transitions cause a reduction of genomic GC content in prokaryotic genomes on an evolutionary time scale. To test this hypothesis, we used a phylogenetic approach to analyze triplets of closely related genomes representing a wide range of the bacterial kingdom. The resulting data indicate that genomic GC content is drifting downward in bacterial genomes where GC base pairs comprise 40% or more of the total genome. In contrast, genomes containing less than 40% GC base pairs have fewer opportunities for GC->AT transitions to occur so genomic GC content is relatively stable or actually increasing. It should be noted that this observed change in genomic GC content is the net change in shared parts of the genome and does not apply to parts of the genome that have been lost or acquired since the genomes being compared shared common ancestor. However, a more detailed analysis of two Caulobacter genomes revealed that the acquisition of mobile elements by the two genomes actually reduced the total genomic GC content as well.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic DriftBacteriaBase CompositionGene ConversionGenome, BacterialGenomicsMutationPhylogenyProkaryotic Cells

Identifiers

PMID34038432
PMCPMC8153448
OpenAlexW3165014476

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.