ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2022
A large-scale whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals false positives of bacterial essential genes.
Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic language models (gLMs) decode bacterial genomes for improved gene prediction and translation initiation site identification.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Essential genes are crucial for bacterial viability and represent attractive targets for novel anti-pathogen drug discovery. However, essential genes determined by the transposon insertion sequencing (Tn-seq) approach often contain many false positives. We hypothesized that some of those false positives are genes that are actually deleted from the genome, so they do not present any transposon insertion in the course of Tn-seq analysis. Based on this assumption, we performed a large-scale whole-genome sequencing analysis for the bacterium of interest. Our analysis revealed that some "essential genes" are indeed removed from the analyzed bacterial genomes. Since these genes were kicked out by bacteria, they should not be defined as essential. Our work showed that gene deletion is one of the false positive sources of essentiality determination, which is apparently underestimated in previous studies. We suggest subtracting the genome backgrounds before the evaluation of Tn-seq, and created a list of false positive gene essentiality as a reference for the downstream application. KEY POINTS: • Discovery of false positives of essential genes defined previously through the analyses of a large scale of whole-genome sequencing data • These false positives are the results of gene deletions in the studied genomes • Sequencing the target genome before Tn-seq analysis is of importance while some studies neglected it.
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.