The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How Close Is Close: 16S rRNA Sequence Identity May Not Be Sufficient To Guarantee Species Identity
Abstract
16S rRNA (genes coding for rRNA) sequence comparisons were conducted with the following three psychrophilic strains: Bacillus globisporus W25T (T = type strain) and Bacillus psychrophilus W16AT, and W5. These strains exhibited more than 99.5% sequence identity and within experimental uncertainty could be regarded as identical. Their close taxonomic relationship was further documented by phenotypic similarities. In contrast, previously published DNA-DNA hybridization results have convincingly established that these strains do not belong to the same species if current standards are used. These results emphasize the important point that effective identity of 16S rRNA sequences is not necessarily a sufficient criterion to guarantee species identity. Thus, although 16S rRNA sequences can be used routinely to distinguish and establish relationships between genera and well-resolved species, very recently diverged species may not be recognizable.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Report of the ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species definition in bacteriology.
Stackebrandt, E., Frederiksen, W., Garrity, G. M., Grimont, P. A. D., Kämpfer, P., Maiden, M. C. J., Nesme, X., Rosselló-Mora, R., Swings, J., Trüper, H. G., et al. (2002) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/00207713-52-3-1043 · Cited by 1,540
Větrovský, T., & Baldrian, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057923 · Cited by 1,208
Re-evaluating prokaryotic species
Gevers, D., Cohan, F. M., Lawrence, J. G., Spratt, B. G., Coenye, T., Feil, E. J., Stackebrandt, E., de Peer, Y. V., Vandamme, P., Thompson, F. L., et al. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1236 · Cited by 1,122
Phytoplasma: Phytopathogenic Mollicutes
Lee, I.-M., Davis, R. E., & Gundersen-Rindal, D. E. (2000) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.221 · Cited by 965
Ramasamy, D., Mishra, A. K., Lagier, J.-C., Padhmanabhan, R., Rossi, M., Sentausa, E., Raoult, D., & Fournier, P.-E. (2014) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.057091-0 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Fox, G. E., Wisotzkey, J. D., & Jurtshuk, P.
- Venue
- International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 1992-01-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 166-170
- ISSN
- 0020-7713 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-2102
- OpenAlex
- W2126321303
- Cited by
- 1,300
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.54
- 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: How Close Is Close: 16S rRNA Sequence Identity May Not Be Sufficient To Guarantee Species Identity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/00207713-42-1-166
- The paper
- Fox, G. E., Wisotzkey, J. D., & Jurtshuk, P. (1992). How Close Is Close: 16S rRNA Sequence Identity May Not Be Sufficient To Guarantee Species Identity. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-42-1-166
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.
