The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cautionary tale of using 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values in identification of human-associated bacterial species
Abstract
Modern bacterial taxonomy is based on a polyphasic approach that combines phenotypic and genotypic characteristics, including 16S rRNA sequence similarity. However, the 95 % (for genus) and 98.7 % (for species) sequence similarity thresholds that are currently recommended to classify bacterial isolates were defined by comparison of a limited number of bacterial species, and may not apply to many genera that contain human-associated species. For each of 158 bacterial genera containing human-associated species, we computed pairwise sequence similarities between all species that have names with standing in nomenclature and then analysed the results, considering as abnormal any similarity value lower than 95 % or greater than 98.7 %. Many of the current bacterial species with validly published names do not respect the 95 and 98.7 % thresholds, with 57.1 % of species exhibiting 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity rates ≥98.7 %, and 60.1 % of genera containing species exhibiting a 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity rate <95 %. In only 17 of the 158 genera studied (10.8 %), all species respected the 95 and 98.7 % thresholds. As we need powerful and reliable taxonomical tools, and as potential new tools such as pan-genomics have not yet been fully evaluated for taxonomic purposes, we propose to use as thresholds, genus by genus, the minimum and maximum similarity values observed among species.
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
Cites
The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., Peplies, J., & Glöckner, F. O. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219 · Cited by 33,055
Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA Gene Database and Workbench Compatible with ARB
DeSantis, T. Z., Hugenholtz, P., Larsen, N., Rojas, M., Brodie, E. L., Keller, K., Huber, T., Dalevi, D., Hu, P., & Andersen, G. L. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03006-05 · Cited by 10,891
Cited by
The effect of 16S rRNA region choice on bacterial community metabarcoding results
Bukin, Y. S., Galachyants, Y. P., Morozov, I. V., Bukin, S. V., Zakharenko, A. S., & Zemskaya, T. I. (2019) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2019.7 · Cited by 394
Metadata
- Authors
- Rossi-Tamisier, M., Benamar, S., Raoult, D., & Fournier, P.-E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
- Publisher
- Microbiology Society
- Published
- 2015-06-01
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- Pt_6
- Pages
- 1929-1934
- ISSN
- 1466-5026 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-5034
- OpenAlex
- W2115036108
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.72
- 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: Cautionary tale of using 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values in identification of human-associated bacterial species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/ijs.0.000161
- The paper
- Rossi-Tamisier, M., Benamar, S., Raoult, D., & Fournier, P.-E. (2015). Cautionary tale of using 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values in identification of human-associated bacterial species. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.000161
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.