Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41221579›Full record

ReviewMolecular ecology2025

What We Talk About When We Talk About Microbial Species.

Apurva Narechania, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, M Thomas P Gilbert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Apurva NarechaniaCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, the Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0007-0003-9246
Shyam GopalakrishnanCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, the Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M Thomas P GilbertCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, the Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5805-7195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome annotation, alignment and phylogenetics are at the centre of most studies in evolutionary genomics. These techniques function best when rooted in prior work. Genes are mined from new genomes using evidence from old gene models. These genomes are aligned to well-worn references to create matrices for tree reconstruction. Trees are often populated with well-characterised genomes to add context to the newly sequenced. Genome inference traces a line back to model organisms, yoking the analysis of new genomes to layers of previous knowledge. Here, we present an alternative approach that uses unannotated and unaligned sequence to understand the information diversity of sequence ensembles. Any set of genomes can comprise our sequence ensemble. In a pandemic context, a sequence ensemble might be clinically isolated strains from one day. In a systematic context, a sequence ensemble could be the pangenome available for a clade. The normal bioinformatics playbook would have us align. But we instead compress. A sequence ensemble that compresses easily contains lower information diversity. For pandemics, we can use curves of information diversity to trace genomic novelty and monitor selective sweeps in new strains. For systematics, we can calculate compressibility quickly across all known bacterial taxa, levelling the criteria for species across clades. If we tolerate data loss, we can go one step further and capture structural evolution as we compress. Our approach sacrifices a lot. We skip many of the products of modern bioinformatics like variation anchored to known genes or genome alignment to prescribed references or pangenome graphs. But we gain speed, breadth and the ability to rapidly respond to novelty.

Indexed as

BacteriaComputational BiologyGenome, BacterialGenomicsEvolution, MolecularPandemicsPhylogenycompressioninformation theorypangenomes

Identifiers

PMID41221579
PMCPMC12717965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.