ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2021
Comparative Genome Analysis of Three
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Lineage Structure, Cellulose Locus Context, and Mobilome Diversity Across CompleteMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Bacterial Cellulose Production by a NovelFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CRISPR-guided base editor enables efficient and multiplex genome editing in bacterial cellulose-producingApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- A Review on the Interaction of Acetic Acid Bacteria and Microbes in Food Fermentation: A Microbial Ecology Perspective.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Whole genome sequencing analysis of Komagataeibacter nataicola reveals its potential in food waste valorisation for cellulose production.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Characterization of the Putative Acylated Cellulose Synthase Operon inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We determined the whole genome sequences of three bacterial strains, designated as FNDCR1, FNDCF1, and FNDCR2, isolated from a practical nata-de-coco producing bacterial culture. Only FNDCR1 and FNDCR2 strains had the ability to produce cellulose. The 16S rDNA sequence and phylogenetic analysis revealed that all strains belonged to the
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.