The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intraspecific Variation in Small-Subunit rRNA Sequences in GenBank: Why Single Sequences May Not Adequately Represent Prokaryotic Taxa
Abstract
Small-subunit rRNA (SSU rRNA) sequencing is a powerful tool to detect, identify, and classify prokaryotic organisms, and there is currently an explosion of SSU rRNA sequencing in the microbiology community. We report unexpectedly high levels of intraspecific variation (within and between strains) of prokaryote SSU rRNA sequences deposited in GenBank. A total of 82% of the prokaryote species with two published SSU rRNA sequences had more variable positions than a 0.1% random sequencing error would predict, and 48% of these sequence pairs had more variable positions than predicted by a 1.0% random sequencing error. Other sources of sequence variability must account for some of this intraspecific variation. Given these results, phylogenetic studies and biodiversity estimates obtained by using prokaryotic SSU rRNA sequences cannot proceed under the assumption that rRNA sequences of single operons from single isolates adequately represent their taxa. Sequencing SSU rRNA molecules from multiple operons and multiple isolates is highly recommended to obtain meaningful phylogenetic hypotheses, as is careful attention to accurate strain identification.
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
Toward a census of bacteria in soil
Schloss, P. D., & Handelsman, J. (2006) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020092 · Cited by 429
Yap, W. H., Zhang, Z., & Wang, Y. (1999) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.181.17.5201-5209.1999 · Cited by 272
Taxonomic revision of commercially used Arthrospira(Cyanobacteria) strains: a polyphasic approach
Papapanagiotou, G., & Gkelis, S. (2019) · European Journal of Phycology · doi:10.1080/09670262.2019.1624832 · Cited by 26
Bioinformatic Methodologies in Assessing Gut Microbiota
Fox, J. D., Sims, A., Ross, M., Bettag, J., Wilder, A., Natrop, D., Borsotti, A., Kolli, S., Mehta, S., Verma, H., et al. (2024) · Microbiology Research · doi:10.3390/microbiolres15040170 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- CLAYTON, R. A., SUTTON, G., HINKLE, P. S., BULT, C., & FIELDS, C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 1995-07-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 595-599
- ISSN
- 0020-7713 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-2102
- OpenAlex
- W2134256117
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.55
- 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: Intraspecific Variation in Small-Subunit rRNA Sequences in GenBank: Why Single Sequences May Not Adequately Represent Prokaryotic Taxa. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/00207713-45-3-595
- The paper
- CLAYTON, R. A., SUTTON, G., HINKLE, P. S., BULT, C., & FIELDS, C. (1995). Intraspecific Variation in Small-Subunit rRNA Sequences in GenBank: Why Single Sequences May Not Adequately Represent Prokaryotic Taxa. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-45-3-595
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.