ArticleBMC microbiology2024
Novel Organism Verification and Analysis (NOVA) study: identification of 35 clinical isolates representing potentially novel bacterial taxa using a pipeline based on whole genome sequencing.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical, Immunological and Microbiological Improvements With Zinc-Coated Healing Abutments During the Healing Phase.International dental journal · 2026Trial
- A Modern Framework for Identifying Novel EnvironmentalLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Whole-genome sequence analyses reveal cryptic species-level diversity among clinicalMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- DetectingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An underestimated pathogen:Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Review
- Pseudomonas fragi or not? Beyond MALDI-TOF in the frontier of Pseudomonas diversity.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2025Article
- Immunoinformatics and Reverse Vaccinology Approach for the Identification of Potential Vaccine Candidates againstMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable species identification of cultured isolates is essential in clinical bacteriology. We established a new study algorithm named NOVA - Novel Organism Verification and Analysis to systematically analyze bacterial isolates that cannot be characterized by conventional identification procedures MALDI-TOF MS and partial 16 S rRNA gene sequencing using Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS).
resultsWe identified a total of 35 bacterial strains that represent potentially novel species. Corynebacterium sp. (n = 6) and Schaalia sp. (n = 5) were the predominant genera. Two strains each were identified within the genera Anaerococcus, Clostridium, Desulfovibrio, and Peptoniphilus, and one new species was detected within Citrobacter, Dermabacter, Helcococcus, Lancefieldella, Neisseria, Ochrobactrum (Brucella), Paenibacillus, Pantoea, Porphyromonas, Pseudoclavibacter, Pseudomonas, Psychrobacter, Pusillimonas, Rothia, Sneathia, and Tessaracoccus. Twenty-seven of 35 strains were isolated from deep tissue specimens or blood cultures. Seven out of 35 isolated strains identified were clinically relevant. In addition, 26 bacterial strains that could only be identified at the species level using WGS analysis, were mainly organisms that have been identified/classified very recently.
conclusionOur new algorithm proved to be a powerful tool for detection and identification of novel bacterial organisms. Publicly available clinical and genomic data may help to better understand their clinical and ecological role. Our identification of 35 novel strains, 7 of which appear to be clinically relevant, shows the wide range of undescribed pathogens yet to define.
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.