The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case
Open accessAbstract
Prokaryotic taxonomy is the underpinning of microbiology, as it provides a framework for the proper identification and naming of organisms. The “gold standard” of bacterial species delineation is the overall genome similarity determined by DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH), a technically rigorous yet sometimes variable method that may produce inconsistent results. Improvements in next-generation sequencing have resulted in an upsurge of bacterial genome sequences and bioinformatic tools that compare genomic data, such as average nucleotide identity (ANI), correlation of tetranucleotide frequencies, and the genome-to-genome distance calculator, or in silico DDH ( is DDH). Here, we evaluate ANI and is DDH in combination with phylogenetic studies using Aeromonas , a taxonomically challenging genus with many described species and several strains that were reassigned to different species as a test case. We generated improved, high-quality draft genome sequences for 33 Aeromonas strains and combined them with 23 publicly available genomes. ANI and is DDH distances were determined and compared to phylogenies from multilocus sequence analysis of housekeeping genes, ribosomal proteins, and expanded core genes. The expanded core phylogenetic analysis suggested relationships between distant Aeromonas clades that were inconsistent with studies using fewer genes. ANI values of ≥96% and is DDH values of ≥70% consistently grouped genomes originating from strains of the same species together. Our study confirmed known misidentifications, validated the recent revisions in the nomenclature, and revealed that a number of genomes deposited in GenBank are misnamed. In addition, two strains were identified that may represent novel Aeromonas species. IMPORTANCE Improvements in DNA sequencing technologies have resulted in the ability to generate large numbers of high-quality draft genomes and led to a dramatic increase in the number of publically available genomes. This has allowed researchers to characterize microorganisms using genome data. Advantages of genome sequence-based classification include data and computing programs that can be readily shared, facilitating the standardization of taxonomic methodology and resolving conflicting identifications by providing greater uniformity in an overall analysis. Using Aeromonas as a test case, we compared and validated different approaches. Based on our analyses, we recommend cutoff values for distance measures for identifying species. Accurate species classification is critical not only to obviate the perpetuation of errors in public databases but also to ensure the validity of inferences made on the relationships among species within a genus and proper identification in clinical and veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
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
Guindon, S., Dufayard, J.-F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., & Gascuel, O. (2010) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · Cited by 18,376
RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models
Stamatakis, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 · Cited by 15,582
FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S., & Arkin, A. P. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · Cited by 14,894
Caspi, R., Billington, R., Ferrer, L., Foerster, H., Fulcher, C. A., Keseler, I. M., Kothari, A., Krummenacker, M., Latendresse, M., Mueller, L. A., et al. (2016) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1164 · Cited by 3,395
Highways of gene sharing in prokaryotes
Beiko, R. G., Harlow, T. J., & Ragan, M. A. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504068102 · Cited by 535
Cited by
Proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes
Chun, J., Oren, A., Ventosa, A., Christensen, H., Arahal, D. R., da Costa, M. S., Rooney, A. P., Yi, H., Xu, X.-W., De Meyer, S., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.002516 · Cited by 3,081
Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life
Soucy, S. M., Huang, J., & Gogarten, J. P. (2015) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3962 · Cited by 1,449
Self-citationAn Update on the Genus Aeromonas: Taxonomy, Epidemiology, and Pathogenicity
Fernández-Bravo, A., & Figueras, M. J. (2020) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms8010129 · Cited by 699
Fan, B., Blom, J., Klenk, H.-P., & Borriss, R. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00022 · Cited by 438
Virulence Factors of Aeromonas hydrophila: In the Wake of Reclassification
Rasmussen-Ivey, C. R., Figueras, M. J., McGarey, D., & Liles, M. R. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01337 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Colston, S. M., Fullmer, M. S., Beka, L., Lamy, B., Gogarten, J. P., & Graf, J.
- Venue
- mBio
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2014-12-31
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e02136-e02136
- ISSN
- 2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
- 2161-2129
- OpenAlex
- W2098969756
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/mbio.02136-14
- The paper
- Colston, S. M., Fullmer, M. S., Beka, L., Lamy, B., Gogarten, J. P., & Graf, J. (2014). Bioinformatic Genome Comparisons for Taxonomic and Phylogenetic Assignments Using Aeromonas as a Test Case. mBio. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02136-14
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.