CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative analysis of commensal Escherichia coli populations reveals host‐specific enterotypes at the intra‐species level

Smati, Mounira, Clermont, Olivier, Bleibtreu, Alexandre, Fourreau, Frédéric, David, Anthony, Daubié, Anne‐Sophie, Hignard, Cécile, Loison, Odile, Picard, Bertrand, Denamur, Erick·2015·MicrobiologyOpen
DOI 10.1002/mbo3.266PMC PMC4554456
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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/mbo3.266

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Factorial analysis of correspondence for the 132 animals with stool samples containing Escherichia coli. Projections on the F1–F2 plane of the dominant phylogenetic groups (DA, DB1, DB2 and DD), the intermediate phylogenetic groups (IA, IB1, IB2 and ID), the minor phylogenetic groups (MB1, MB2, and MD), of the absence of the phylogenetic groups (AB1, AB2, and AD), high genetic diversity (four phyl grps), low genetic diversity (three or less phyl grps), counts of E. coli per gram of feces (CFU > 107, 107 < CFU < 106, and CFU < 106), the animal species (horse, cow, sheep, wild rabbit, domesticated rabbit, deer, pig, boar, and chicken), habitat (wild and domesticated), and diet (herbivorous and omnivorous). The bacterial characteristics appear in black, the animal species of wild and domestic origin are in red and blue, respectively, and the diets are in green.
Figure 1 Factorial analysis of correspondence for the 132 animals with stool samples containing Escherichia coli. Projections on the F1–F2 plane of the dominant phylogenetic groups (DA, DB1, DB2 and DD), the intermediate phylogenetic groups (IA, IB1, IB2 and ID), the minor phylogenetic groups (MB1, MB2, and MD), of the absence of the phylogenetic groups (AB1, AB2, and AD), high genetic diversity (four phyl grps), low genetic diversity (three or less phyl grps), counts of E. coli per gram of feces (CFU > 107, 107 < CFU < 106, and CFU < 106), the animal species (horse, cow, sheep, wild rabbit, domesticated rabbit, deer, pig, boar, and chicken), habitat (wild and domesticated), and diet (herbivorous and omnivorous). The bacterial characteristics appear in black, the animal species of wild and domestic origin are in red and blue, respectively, and the diets are in green.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Relative abundance of the Escherichia coli strains from the four main phylogroups (A, B1, B2, D) in each “enterocolitype” of animals (upper panel) and humans (lower panel). Enterocolitype 1 (wild rabbits and deer), enterocolitype 2 (domesticated rabbits, horses, sheep, cows), enterocolitype 3 (boar, pigs, chicken), enterocolitype 4 (human B2 “exclusive”), and enterocolitype 5 (human A dominant). Enterocolitypes 4 and 5 are based on data obtained from (Smati et al. 2013). The results are presented as box plots showing the distribution of the estimated CFU per gram of feces. The black bars within each box plot show the median value. The upper and lower limits of the box correspond to the upper and lower quartiles, respectively. Bars above and below the box correspond to 1.5 times the interquartile range. Dots located at some distance outside the box correspond to outliers lying more than 1.5 times beyond the interquartile range.
Figure 2 Relative abundance of the Escherichia coli strains from the four main phylogroups (A, B1, B2, D) in each “enterocolitype” of animals (upper panel) and humans (lower panel). Enterocolitype 1 (wild rabbits and deer), enterocolitype 2 (domesticated rabbits, horses, sheep, cows), enterocolitype 3 (boar, pigs, chicken), enterocolitype 4 (human B2 “exclusive”), and enterocolitype 5 (human A dominant). Enterocolitypes 4 and 5 are based on data obtained from (Smati et al. 2013). The results are presented as box plots showing the distribution of the estimated CFU per gram of feces. The black bars within each box plot show the median value. The upper and lower limits of the box correspond to the upper and lower quartiles, respectively. Bars above and below the box correspond to 1.5 times the interquartile range. Dots located at some distance outside the box correspond to outliers lying more than 1.5 times beyond the interquartile range.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Factorial analysis of correspondence for the 43 phylogroup B2 Escherichia coli commensal strains of human or animal origin. Projections on the plane F1–F2 of the variables: human and “exclusive” B2 group, human and “non-exclusive” B2 group, animal origin (animals), the B2 subgroups (SG) I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX, unassigned (UA), the virulence factors described in Table3, the absence (abs) of several virulence factors, and a virulence score of 9 or more (Virc ≥ 9). The presence and absence of virulence genes are in red and black, respectively, the phylogenetic subgroups are in green and the origins of the strains are in blue.
Figure 3 Factorial analysis of correspondence for the 43 phylogroup B2 Escherichia coli commensal strains of human or animal origin. Projections on the plane F1–F2 of the variables: human and “exclusive” B2 group, human and “non-exclusive” B2 group, animal origin (animals), the B2 subgroups (SG) I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX, unassigned (UA), the virulence factors described in Table3, the absence (abs) of several virulence factors, and a virulence score of 9 or more (Virc ≥ 9). The presence and absence of virulence genes are in red and black, respectively, the phylogenetic subgroups are in green and the origins of the strains are in blue.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.1371/journal.pone.0011882 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/nature09944 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.02.019 · DOI
  4. 10.1128/IAI.01329-12 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nature11319 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1128/AEM.66.10.4555-4558.2000 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.08.007 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02519.x · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.02.005 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/1758-2229.12019 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.03.008 · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.1001261107 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1038/nature12820 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1007/BF00160315 · DOI
  15. 10.1128/JB.00804-10 · DOI
  16. 10.1099/00221287-147-6-1671 · DOI
  17. 10.1128/AEM.70.9.5698-5700.2004 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01077.x · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00499.x · DOI
  20. 10.1099/mic.0.26486-0 · DOI
  21. 10.1099/mic.0.28690-0 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/096228029200100106 · DOI
  23. Hariharan H., 2007, Isolation of Escherichia fergusonii from the feces and internal organs of a goat with diarrhea, Can. Vet. J., 48, 630
  24. 10.1637/7221-061104r · DOI
  25. 10.1128/jb.172.11.6175-6181.1990 · DOI
  26. 10.1086/315217 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1128/JCM.00949-08 · DOI
  28. Kendall M. G., 1939, Tables of random sampling numbers
  29. 10.1128/AEM.01144-08 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/molbev/msm172 · DOI
  31. 10.1128/JCM.01902-10 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2012.00374.x · DOI
  33. 10.1126/science.1155725 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1038/ncomms2159 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.micinf.2008.12.002 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.micpath.2012.05.011 · DOI
  37. 10.1086/427996 · DOI
  38. 10.1073/pnas.81.1.198 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/s12275-011-1133-y · DOI
  40. 10.1542/peds.2005-2824 · DOI · Paper page
  41. R Development Core Team, 2008, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
  42. 10.1099/00221287-138-7-1345 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01595.x · DOI
  44. 10.1371/journal.pone.0059242 · DOI
  45. 10.1128/IAI.70.3.1225-1229.2002 · DOI
  46. 10.1128/AEM.01423-13 · DOI
  47. 10.1038/nrmicro2298 · DOI
  48. 10.1038/ismej.2014.147 · DOI
  49. 10.1128/AEM.01262-09 · DOI
  50. 10.1126/science.1208344 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 64

Metadata

Authors
Smati, M., Clermont, O., Bleibtreu, A., Fourreau, F., David, A., Daubié, A., Hignard, C., Loison, O., Picard, B., & Denamur, E.
Venue
MicrobiologyOpen
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-29
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
604-615
ISSN
2045-8827
DOI
10.1002/mbo3.266
PMC
PMC4554456
Cited by
64
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • INSERM
  • Universities Paris Nord
  • Paris Diderot

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: Quantitative analysis of commensal Escherichia coli populations reveals host‐specific enterotypes at the intra‐species level. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mbo3.266
The paper
Smati, M., Clermont, O., Bleibtreu, A., Fourreau, F., David, A., Daubié, A., Hignard, C., Loison, O., Picard, B., & Denamur, E. (2015). Quantitative analysis of commensal Escherichia coli populations reveals host‐specific enterotypes at the intra‐species level. MicrobiologyOpen. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.266