ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024
Comparative Analyses of Bacteriophage Genomes.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phage Genomics and Bioinformatics in Therapeutic Development: Evidence Limits, Validation Gates, and Translational Decision-Making.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diversity of fecal viromes and zoonotic risk assessment in captive wild felids using viral metagenomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Charting the virosphere: computational synergies of AI and bioinformatics in viral discovery and evolution.Journal of virology · 2025Review
- A Bioinformatic Ecosystem for Bacteriophage Genomics: PhaMMSeqs, Phamerator, pdm_utils, PhagesDB, DEPhT, and PhamClust.Viruses · 2024Review
- Insights from Shigella bacteriophage genomes analysis.Bioinformation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacterial viruses (bacteriophages or phages) are the most abundant and diverse biological entities on Earth. There is a renewed worldwide interest in phage-centered research motivated by their enormous potential as antimicrobials to cope with multidrug-resistant pathogens. An ever-growing number of complete phage genomes are becoming available, derived either from newly isolated phages (cultivated phages) or recovered from metagenomic sequencing data (uncultivated phages). Robust comparative analysis is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of genotypic variations of phages and their related evolutionary processes, and to investigate the interaction mechanisms between phages and their hosts. In this chapter, we present a protocol for phage comparative genomics employing tools selected out of the many currently available, focusing on complete genomes of phages classified in the class Caudoviricetes. This protocol provides accurate identification of similarities, differences, and patterns among new and previously known complete phage genomes as well as phage clustering and taxonomic classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38819567What 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.