Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 618

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Clonal Is Staphylococcus aureus ?

Open access
Feil, Edward J., Cooper, Jessica E., Grundmann, Hajo, Robinson, D. Ashley, Enright, Mark C., Berendt, Tony, Peacock, Sharon J., Smith, John Maynard, Murphy, Michael, Spratt, Brian G., Moore, Catrin E., Day, Nicholas P. J.·2003·Journal of Bacteriology

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is an important human pathogen and represents a growing public health burden owing to the emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant clones, particularly within the hospital environment. Despite this, basic questions about the evolution and population biology of the species, particularly with regard to the extent and impact of homologous recombination, remain unanswered. We address these issues through an analysis of sequence data obtained from the characterization by multilocus sequence typing (MLST) of 334 isolates of S . aureus , recovered from a well-defined population, over a limited time span. We find no significant differences in the distribution of multilocus genotypes between strains isolated from carriers and those from patients with invasive disease; there is, therefore, no evidence from MLST data, which index variation within the stable “core” genome, for the existence of hypervirulent clones of this pathogen. Examination of the sequence changes at MLST loci during clonal diversification shows that point mutations give rise to new alleles at least 15-fold more frequently than does recombination. This contrasts with the naturally transformable species Neisseria meningitidis and Streptococcus pneumoniae , in which alleles change between 5- and 10-fold more frequently by recombination than by mutation. However, phylogenetic analysis suggests that homologous recombination does contribute toward the evolution of this species over the long term. Finally, we note a striking excess of nonsynonymous substitutions in comparisons between isolates belonging to the same clonal complex compared to isolates belonging to different clonal complexes, suggesting that the removal of deleterious mutations by purifying selection may be relatively slow.

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 · 10.1128/jb.185.11.3307-3316.2003

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 618

Metadata

Authors
Feil, E. J., Cooper, J. E., Grundmann, H., Robinson, D. A., Enright, M. C., Berendt, T., Peacock, S. J., Smith, J. M., Murphy, M., Spratt, B. G., Moore, C. E., & Day, N. P. J.
Venue
Journal of Bacteriology
Published
2003-06
Volume
185
Issue
11
Pages
3307-3316
ISSN
  • 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5530
OpenAlex
W2145240901
Cited by
618
References
2
FWCI
23.44
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: How Clonal Is Staphylococcus aureus ? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.185.11.3307-3316.2003
The paper
Feil, E. J., Cooper, J. E., Grundmann, H., Robinson, D. A., Enright, M. C., Berendt, T., Peacock, S. J., Smith, J. M., Murphy, M., Spratt, B. G., Moore, C. E., & Day, N. P. J. (2003). How Clonal Is Staphylococcus aureus ? Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.185.11.3307-3316.2003

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.