Cited by 308Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFractal and DNA sequence analysisRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Evolutionary Implications of Microbial Genome Tetranucleotide Frequency Biases

Open access
Pride, David T., Meinersmann, Richard J., Wassenaar, Trudy M., Blaser, Martin J.·2003·Genome Research

Abstract

We compared nucleotide usage pattern conservation for related prokaryotes by examining the representation of DNA tetranucleotide combinations in 27 representative microbial genomes. For each of the organisms studied, tetranucleotide usage departures from expectations (TUD) were shared between related organisms using both Markov chain analysis and a zero-order Markov method. Individual strains, multiple chromosomes, plasmids, and bacteriophages share TUDs within a species. TUDs varied between coding and noncoding DNA. Grouping prokaryotes based on TUD profiles resulted in relationships with important differences from those based on 16S rRNA phylogenies, which may reflect unequal rates of evolution of nucleotide usage patterns following divergence of particular organisms from a common ancestor. By both symmetrical tree distance and likelihood analysis, phylogenetic trees based on TUD profiles demonstrate a level of congruence with 16S rRNA trees similar to that of both RpoA and RecA trees. Congruence of these trees indicates that there exists phylogenetic signal in TUD patterns, most prominent in coding region DNA. Because relationships demonstrated in TUD-based analyses utilize whole genomes, they should be considered complementary to phylogenies based on single genetic elements, such as 16S rRNA.

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 · 10.1101/gr.335003

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. WEB SITE REFERENCES ftp://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/genomes/bacteria/; GenBank Web site which offers bacterial and archaeal genome sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMGifs/Genomes/phg.html; GenBank Web site which offers bacteriophage genome sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMGifs/Genomes/eub_p.html; GenBank Web site which offers bacterial and archaeal plasmid sequences. http://www. bacteriamuseum.org/SWAAP/SwaapPage.htm; Web site which offers Swaap 1.0.0 and Swaap PH 1.0. 10.1101/gr.335003 Access the most recent version at doi: 2003 13: 145-158 Genome Res.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pride, D. T., Meinersmann, R. J., Wassenaar, T. M., & Blaser, M. J.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2003-01-14
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
145-158
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2082521980
Cited by
289
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk053707-06, CA68485)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA68485, P30CA068485)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM 63270, R01GM063270)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK 53707)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
prokaryotic genomes, phylogenetic signal, phylogenetic incongruence, 16S rRNA phylogeny, Markov chain analysis, bacterial evolution, genome-based phylogeny
MeSH terms
Chromosome Mapping, Chromosomes, Bacterial, DNA, Bacterial, Gram-Negative Bacteria, Gram-Positive Bacteria, Phylogeny, Plasmids, RNA, Bacterial, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Spirochaeta, Cluster Analysis, Genome, Bacterial, Microsatellite Repeats, DNA, Archaeal, RNA, Archaeal, Chromosomes, Archaeal, Genome, Archaeal, Gene Transfer, Horizontal

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