The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification and phylogenetic sorting of bacterial lineages with universally conserved genes and proteins
Abstract
Summary: Molecular characterizations of bacteria often employ ribosomal DNA (rDNA) to establish the identity and relationships among organisms, but the use of rRNA sequences can be problematic as the result of alignment ambiguities caused by indels, the lack of informative characters, and varying functional constraints over the molecule. Although protein‐coding regions have been used as an alternative to rRNA, there is neither consensus among the genes examined nor ways to rapidly obtain sequence information for such genes from uncharacterized bacterial species. To standardize the set of protein‐coding loci assayed in bacterial genomes, we examined over 100 widely distributed genes to identify sets of universal primers for use in the PCR amplification of protein coding regions that are common to virtually all bacteria. From this set, we developed primer sets that each target of 10 genes spanning an array of genomic locations and functional categories. Although many of the primers contain sequence degeneracies that aid in targeting genes across diverse taxa, most are adequate for direct sequencing of amplification products, thereby eliminating intermediate cloning before sequence determination. We foresee the analysis of these protein‐coding regions as being complementary to ribosomal DNA for answering questions pertaining to bacterial identification, classification, phylogenetics and evolution.
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
Prokaryotes: The unseen majority
Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 · Cited by 4,871 · cited 2×
“Although bacteria are the most ancient and pervasive organisms on the planet ( Whitman et al ., 1998; Sheridan et al ., 2003), identifying and distinguishing microbial species, and inferring their relationships, have been historically fraught with difficulties because of a lack of morphologically distinguishing featur…”
BackgroundHansmann, S., & Martin, W. (2000) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/00207713-50-4-1655 · Cited by 99
Cited by
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
Diancourt, L., Passet, V., Nemec, A., Dijkshoorn, L., & Brisse, S. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010034 · Cited by 719
The reconstruction of 2,631 draft metagenome-assembled genomes from the global oceans
Tully, B. J., Graham, E. D., & Heidelberg, J. F. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.203 · Cited by 508
Naser, S. M., Thompson, F. L., Hoste, B., Gevers, D., Dawyndt, P., Vancanneyt, M., & Swings, J. (2005) · Microbiology · doi:10.1099/mic.0.27840-0 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- Santos, S. R., & Ochman, H.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04-15
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 754-759
- ISSN
- 1462-2912 (ISSN-L)
- 1462-2920
- OpenAlex
- W2164177460
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.03
- 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: Identification and phylogenetic sorting of bacterial lineages with universally conserved genes and proteins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00617.x
- The paper
- Santos, S. R., & Ochman, H. (2004). Identification and phylogenetic sorting of bacterial lineages with universally conserved genes and proteins. Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00617.x
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.