Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37480240›Full record

ArticleFEMS microbiology letters2023

Proposal of names for 329 higher rank taxa defined in the Genome Taxonomy Database under two prokaryotic codes.

Maria Chuvochina, Aaron J Mussig, Pierre-Alain Chaumeil, Adam Skarshewski, Christian Rinke, Donovan H Parks, Philip Hugenholtz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEMS microbiology letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Taxonomic revision of the genusInternational journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Microorganisms · 2026
    Article
  5. Whole-genome sequences ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria ChuvochinaThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3977-6012
Aaron J MussigThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9988-0866
Pierre-Alain ChaumeilThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0426-8445
Adam SkarshewskiThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.
Christian RinkeThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4632-1187
Donovan H ParksThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6662-9010
Philip HugenholtzThe University of Queensland, School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Australian Centre for Ecogenomics,, St Lucia QLD 4072, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5386-7925
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) is a taxonomic framework that defines prokaryotic taxa as monophyletic groups in concatenated protein reference trees according to systematic criteria. This has resulted in a substantial number of changes to existing classifications (https://gtdb.ecogenomic.org). In the case of union of taxa, GTDB names were applied based on the priority of publication. The division of taxa or change in rank led to the formation of new Latin names above the rank of genus that were only made publicly available via the GTDB website without associated published taxonomic descriptions. This has sometimes led to confusion in the literature and databases. A number of the provisional GTDB names were later published in other studies, while many still lack authorships. To reduce further confusion, here we propose names and descriptions for 329 GTDB-defined prokaryotic taxa, 223 of which are suitable for validation under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and 49 under the Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes described from Sequence Data (SeqCode). For the latter, we designated 23 genomes as type material. An additional 57 taxa that do not currently satisfy the validation criteria of either code are proposed as Candidatus.

Indexed as

AuthorshipProkaryotic CellsDatabases, FactualCandidatusGenome Taxonomy DatabaseICNPSeqCode

Identifiers

PMID37480240
PMCPMC10408702
OpenAlexW4385064398

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.