Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 939

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk of antimicrobial resistance genes

Open access
Zhang, An-Ni, Gaston, Jeffry M., Dai, Chengzhen L., Zhao, Shijie, Poyet, Mathilde, Groussin, Mathieu, Yin, Xiaole, Li, Li-Guan, van Loosdrecht, Mark C. M., Topp, Edward, Gillings, Michael R., Hanage, William P., Tiedje, James M., Moniz, Katya, Alm, Eric J., Zhang, Tong·2021·Nature Communications

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) are widespread among bacteria. However, not all ARGs pose serious threats to public health, highlighting the importance of identifying those that are high-risk. Here, we developed an ‘omics-based’ framework to evaluate ARG risk considering human-associated-enrichment, gene mobility, and host pathogenicity. Our framework classifies human-associated, mobile ARGs (3.6% of all ARGs) as the highest risk, which we further differentiate as ‘current threats’ (Rank I; 3%) - already present among pathogens - and ‘future threats’ (Rank II; 0.6%) - novel resistance emerging from non-pathogens. Our framework identified 73 ‘current threat’ ARG families. Of these, 35 were among the 37 high-risk ARGs proposed by the World Health Organization and other literature; the remaining 38 were significantly enriched in hospital plasmids. By evaluating all pathogen genomes released since framework construction, we confirmed that ARGs that recently transferred into pathogens were significantly enriched in Rank II (‘future threats’). Lastly, we applied the framework to gut microbiome genomes from fecal microbiota transplantation donors. We found that although ARGs were widespread (73% of genomes), only 8.9% of genomes contained high-risk ARGs. Our framework provides an easy-to-implement approach to identify current and future antimicrobial resistance threats, with potential clinical applications including reducing risk of microbiome-based interventions.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-021-25096-3

Cites

80 of 80 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 80 references

Cited by

See all 939

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, A.-N., Gaston, J. M., Dai, C. L., Zhao, S., Poyet, M., Groussin, M., Yin, X., Li, L.-G., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Topp, E., Gillings, M. R., Hanage, W. P., Tiedje, J. M., Moniz, K., Alm, E. J., & Zhang, T.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2021-08-06
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
4765-4765
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3187959711
Cited by
939
References
80
FWCI
32.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk of antimicrobial resistance genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-021-25096-3
The paper
Zhang, A.-N., Gaston, J. M., Dai, C. L., Zhao, S., Poyet, M., Groussin, M., Yin, X., Li, L.-G., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Topp, E., Gillings, M. R., Hanage, W. P., Tiedje, J. M., Moniz, K., Alm, E. J., & Zhang, T. (2021). An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk of antimicrobial resistance genes. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25096-3

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.