The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics
Open accessAbstract
Over the last 25 years, a much broader range of taxonomic studies of bacteria has gradually replaced the former reliance upon morphological, physiological, and biochemical characterization. This polyphasic taxonomy takes into account all available phenotypic and genotypic data and integrates them in a consensus type of classification, framed in a general phylogeny derived from 16S rRNA sequence analysis. In some cases, the consensus classification is a compromise containing a minimum of contradictions. It is thought that the more parameters that will become available in the future, the more polyphasic classification will gain stability. In this review, the practice of polyphasic taxonomy is discussed for four groups of bacteria chosen for their relevance, complexity, or both: the genera Xanthomonas and Campylobacter, the lactic acid bacteria, and the family Comamonadaceae. An evaluation of our present insights, the conclusions derived from it, and the perspectives of polyphasic taxonomy are discussed, emphasizing the keystone role of the species. Taxonomists did not succeed in standardizing species delimitation by using percent DNA hybridization values. Together with the absence of another "gold standard" for species definition, this has an enormous repercussion on bacterial taxonomy. This problem is faced in polyphasic taxonomy, which does not depend on a theory, a hypothesis, or a set of rules, presenting a pragmatic approach to a consensus type of taxonomy, integrating all available data maximally. In the future, polyphasic taxonomy will have to cope with (i) enormous amounts of data, (ii) large numbers of strains, and (iii) data fusion (data aggregation), which will demand efficient and centralized data storage. In the future, taxonomic studies will require collaborative efforts by specialized laboratories even more than now is the case. Whether these future developments will guarantee a more stable consensus classification remains an open question.
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
Cited by
Zheng, J., Wittouck, S., Salvetti, E., Franz, C. M. A. P., Harris, H. M. B., Mattarelli, P., O’Toole, P. W., Pot, B., Vandamme, P., Walter, J., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.004107 · Cited by 3,313
Self-citationComparative genomics of the lactic acid bacteria.
Makarova, K., Slesarev, A., Wolf, Y., Sorokin, A., Mirkin, B., Koonin, E., Pavlov, A., Pavlova, N., Karamychev, V., Polouchine, N., et al. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0607117103 · Cited by 1,391
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
Self-citationPhytoplasma: Phytopathogenic Mollicutes
Lee, I.-M., Davis, R. E., & Gundersen-Rindal, D. E. (2000) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.221 · Cited by 965
Ramasamy, D., Mishra, A. K., Lagier, J.-C., Padhmanabhan, R., Rossi, M., Sentausa, E., Raoult, D., & Fournier, P.-E. (2014) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.057091-0 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Vandamme, P. A. R., Pot, B., Gillis, M. F., de Vos, P., Kersters, K., & Swings, J.
- Venue
- Microbiological Reviews
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-438
- ISSN
- 0146-0749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2102274379
- Cited by
- 1,709
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- Licence
- journals.asm.org/non-commercial-tdm-license (tdm)
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: Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/mmbr.60.2.407-438.1996
- The paper
- Vandamme, P. A. R., Pot, B., Gillis, M. F., de Vos, P., Kersters, K., & Swings, J. (1996). Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics. Microbiological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.60.2.407-438.1996
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.