Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Genetic Classification and Distinguishing of Staphylococcus Species Based on Different Partial gap , 16S rRNA, hsp60 , rpoB , sodA , and tuf Gene Sequences

Open access
Ghebremedhin, B., Layer, F., König, W., König, B.·2008·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

The analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences has been the technique generally used to study the evolution and taxonomy of staphylococci. However, the results of this method do not correspond to the results of polyphasic taxonomy, and the related species cannot always be distinguished from each other. Thus, new phylogenetic markers for Staphylococcus spp. are needed. We partially sequenced the gap gene (∼931 bp), which encodes the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, for 27 Staphylococcus species. The partial sequences had 24.3 to 96% interspecies homology and were useful in the identification of staphylococcal species (F. Layer, B. Ghebremedhin, W. König, and B. König, J. Microbiol. Methods 70:542-549, 2007). The DNA sequence similarities of the partial staphylococcal gap sequences were found to be lower than those of 16S rRNA (∼97%), rpoB (∼86%), hsp60 (∼82%), and sodA (∼78%). Phylogenetically derived trees revealed four statistically supported groups: S. hyicus / S. intermedius , S. sciuri , S. haemolyticus / S. simulans , and S. aureus / epidermidis . The branching of S. auricularis , S. cohnii subsp. cohnii , and the heterogeneous S. saprophyticus group, comprising S. saprophyticus subsp. saprophyticus and S. equorum subsp. equorum , was not reliable. Thus, the phylogenetic analysis based on the gap gene sequences revealed similarities between the dendrograms based on other gene sequences (e.g., the S. hyicus / S. intermedius and S. sciuri groups) as well as differences, e.g., the grouping of S. arlettae and S. kloosii in the gap -based tree. From our results, we propose the partial sequencing of the gap gene as an alternative molecular tool for the taxonomical analysis of Staphylococcus species and for decreasing the possibility of misidentification.

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/jcm.02058-07

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.

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

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Ghebremedhin, B., Layer, F., König, W., & König, B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2008-03
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
1019-1025
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2146442541
Cited by
248
References
0
FWCI
10.43
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: Genetic Classification and Distinguishing of Staphylococcus Species Based on Different Partial gap , 16S rRNA, hsp60 , rpoB , sodA , and tuf Gene Sequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.02058-07
The paper
Ghebremedhin, B., Layer, F., König, W., & König, B. (2008). Genetic Classification and Distinguishing of Staphylococcus Species Based on Different Partial gap , 16S rRNA, hsp60 , rpoB , sodA , and tuf Gene Sequences. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02058-07

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.