Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8801440›Full record

ReviewMicrobiological reviews1996

Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics.

P Vandamme, B Pot, M Gillis, P de Vos, K Kersters, J Swings

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiological reviews, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 299 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
299citing 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

299 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. DistinguishingmSystems · 2026
    Article
  2. Taxonomic description of a novel genus,International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomic Insights intoMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  5. Microbial Evolution and Systematics: Archaea and Bacteria.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

239 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

P VandammeLaboratorium voor Microbiologie, Universiteit Gent, Belgium.
B Pot
M Gillis
P de Vos
K Kersters
J Swings

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, a much broader range of taxonomic studies of bacteria has gradually replaced the former reliance upon morphological, physiological, and biochemical characterization. This polyphasic taxonomy takes into account all available phenotypic and genotypic data and integrates them in a consensus type of classification, framed in a general phylogeny derived from 16S rRNA sequence analysis. In some cases, the consensus classification is a compromise containing a minimum of contradictions. It is thought that the more parameters that will become available in the future, the more polyphasic classification will gain stability. In this review, the practice of polyphasic taxonomy is discussed for four groups of bacteria chosen for their relevance, complexity, or both: the genera Xanthomonas and Campylobacter, the lactic acid bacteria, and the family Comamonadaceae. An evaluation of our present insights, the conclusions derived from it, and the perspectives of polyphasic taxonomy are discussed, emphasizing the keystone role of the species. Taxonomists did not succeed in standardizing species delimitation by using percent DNA hybridization values. Together with the absence of another "gold standard" for species definition, this has an enormous repercussion on bacterial taxonomy. This problem is faced in polyphasic taxonomy, which does not depend on a theory, a hypothesis, or a set of rules, presenting a pragmatic approach to a consensus type of taxonomy, integrating all available data maximally. In the future, polyphasic taxonomy will have to cope with (i) enormous amounts of data, (ii) large numbers of strains, and (iii) data fusion (data aggregation), which will demand efficient and centralized data storage. In the future, taxonomic studies will require collaborative efforts by specialized laboratories even more than now is the case. Whether these future developments will guarantee a more stable consensus classification remains an open question.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceBacteriaCampylobacterGenotypeLactobacillusMolecular Sequence DataPhenotypeXanthomonas

Identifiers

PMID8801440
PMCPMC239450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.