ArticlePloS one2023
Are the predicted known bacterial strains in a sample really present? A case study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Intraspecies associations from strain-rich metagenome samples.Cell reports · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With mutations constantly accumulating in bacterial genomes, it is unclear whether the previously identified bacterial strains are really present in an extant sample. To address this question, we did a case study on the known strains of the bacterial species S. aureus and S. epidermis in 68 atopic dermatitis shotgun metagenomic samples. We evaluated the likelihood of the presence of all sixteen known strains predicted in the original study and by two popular tools in this study. We found that even with the same tool, only two known strains were predicted by the original study and this study. Moreover, none of the sixteen known strains was likely present in these 68 samples. Our study thus indicates the limitation of the known-strain-based studies, especially those on rapidly evolving bacterial species. It implies the unlikely presence of the previously identified known strains in a current environmental sample. It also called for de novo bacterial strain identification directly from shotgun metagenomic reads.
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.