Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From a consortium sequence to a unified sequence: the Bacillus subtilis 168 reference genome a decade later

Open access
Barbe, Valérie, Cruveiller, Stéphane, Kunst, Frank, Lenoble, Patricia, Meurice, Guillaume, Sekowska, Agnieszka, Vallenet, David, Wang, Tingzhang, Moszer, Ivan, Médigue, Claudine, Danchin, Antoine·2009·Microbiology

Abstract

Comparative genomics is the cornerstone of identification of gene functions. The immense number of living organisms precludes experimental identification of functions except in a handful of model organisms. The bacterial domain is split into large branches, among which the Firmicutes occupy a considerable space. Bacillus subtilis has been the model of Firmicutes for decades and its genome has been a reference for more than 10 years. Sequencing the genome involved more than 30 laboratories, with different expertises, in a attempt to make the most of the experimental information that could be associated with the sequence. This had the expected drawback that the sequencing expertise was quite varied among the groups involved, especially at a time when sequencing genomes was extremely hard work. The recent development of very efficient, fast and accurate sequencing techniques, in parallel with the development of high-level annotation platforms, motivated the present resequencing work. The updated sequence has been reannotated in agreement with the UniProt protein knowledge base, keeping in perspective the split between the paleome (genes necessary for sustaining and perpetuating life) and the cenome (genes required for occupation of a niche, suggesting here that B. subtilis is an epiphyte). This should permit investigators to make reliable inferences to prepare validation experiments in a variety of domains of bacterial growth and development as well as build up accurate phylogenies.

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 · 10.1099/mic.0.027839-0

Cites

118 of 118 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 118 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Barbe, V., Cruveiller, S., Kunst, F., Lenoble, P., Meurice, G., Sekowska, A., Vallenet, D., Wang, T., Moszer, I., Médigue, C., & Danchin, A.
Venue
Microbiology
Published
2009-06-01
Volume
155
Issue
6
Pages
1758-1775
ISSN
  • 1350-0872 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-2080
OpenAlex
W1981473578
Cited by
381
References
118
FWCI
10.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: From a consortium sequence to a unified sequence: the Bacillus subtilis 168 reference genome a decade later. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1099/mic.0.027839-0
The paper
Barbe, V., Cruveiller, S., Kunst, F., Lenoble, P., Meurice, G., Sekowska, A., Vallenet, D., Wang, T., Moszer, I., Médigue, C., & Danchin, A. (2009). From a consortium sequence to a unified sequence: the Bacillus subtilis 168 reference genome a decade later. Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.027839-0

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.