Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 739

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial phylogeny based on comparative sequence analysis (review)

Ludwig, Wolfgang, Strunk, Oliver, Klugbauer, Sabine, Klugbauer, Norbert, Weizenegger, Michael, Neumaier, Judith, Bachleitner, Marianne, Schleifer, Karl Heinz·1998·ELECTROPHORESIS

Abstract

Comparative sequence analysis of small subunit rRNA is currently one of the most important methods for the elucidation of bacterial phylogeny as well as bacterial identification. Phylogenetic investigations targeting alternative phylogenetic markers such as large subunit rRNA, elongation factors, and ATPases have shown that 16S rRNA‐based trees reflect the history of the corresponding organisms globally. However, in comparison with three to four billion years of evolution the phylogenetic information content of these markers is limited. Consequently, the limited resolution power of the marker molecules allows only a spot check of the evolutionary history of microorganisms. This is often indicated by locally different topologies of trees based on different markers, data sets or the application of different treeing approaches. Sequence peculiarities as well as methods and parameters for data analysis were studied with respect to their effects on the results of phylogenetic investigations. It is shown that only careful data analysis starting with a proper alignment, followed by the analysis of positional variability, rates and character of change, testing various data selections, applying alternative treeing methods and, finally, performing confidence tests, allows reasonable utilization of the limited phylogenetic information.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/elps.1150190416

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 739

Metadata

Authors
Ludwig, W., Strunk, O., Klugbauer, S., Klugbauer, N., Weizenegger, M., Neumaier, J., Bachleitner, M., & Schleifer, K. H.
Venue
ELECTROPHORESIS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-04
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
554-568
ISSN
  • 0173-0835 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2683
OpenAlex
W2030729461
Cited by
739
References
1
FWCI
10.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bacterial phylogeny based on comparative sequence analysis (review). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/elps.1150190416
The paper
Ludwig, W., Strunk, O., Klugbauer, S., Klugbauer, N., Weizenegger, M., Neumaier, J., Bachleitner, M., & Schleifer, K. H. (1998). Bacterial phylogeny based on comparative sequence analysis (review). ELECTROPHORESIS. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.1150190416

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.