ArticleNew microbes and new infections2021
Addressing the sublime scale of the microbial world: reconciling an appreciation of microbial diversity with the need to describe species.
Article in New microbes and new infections, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two novel Patescibacteria:mBio · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Why and how to use the SeqCode.mLife · 2024Article
- Collection and curation of prokaryotic genome assemblies from type strains at NCBI.International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2023Article
- Uncultured prokaryotic genomes in the spotlight: An examination of publicly available data from metagenomics and single-cell genomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Out with the old and in with the new: time to rethink twentieth century chemotaxonomic practices in bacterial taxonomy.International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2021Article
- It is time for a new type of type to facilitate naming the microbial world.New microbes and new infectionsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are fewer than 20,000 prokaryotic species with validly published names, meaning >99% of a reasonable estimate of microbial diversity remains formally unnamed. Here we explore the damaging consequences of the current practice in which each new species is described in a standardized publication, most typically a 'single strain species description'. This approach is both an impediment to scaling up progress in naming the microbial world and also a significant factor in the poor reputation of the discipline of microbial taxonomy. We conclude that significant changes in author habits are needed and make constructive suggestions as to how author practice should adapt.
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.