Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,709

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.

Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics

Open access
Peter A. R. Vandamme, Bruno Pot, Meredith F. Gillis, P de Vos, Karel Kersters, Jean Swings·1996·Microbiological Reviews

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1128/mmbr.60.2.407-438.1996

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 1,709

Metadata

Authors
Vandamme, P. A. R., Pot, B., Gillis, M. F., de Vos, P., Kersters, K., & Swings, J.
Venue
Microbiological Reviews
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.