Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 6,755

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions

Open access
Meier-Kolthoff, Jan P, Auch, Alexander F, Klenk, Hans-Peter, Göker, Markus·2013·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

Background: For the last 25 years species delimitation in prokaryotes (Archaea and Bacteria) was to a large extent based on DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH), a tedious lab procedure designed in the early 1970s that served its purpose astonishingly well in the absence of deciphered genome sequences. With the rapid progress in genome sequencing time has come to directly use the now available and easy to generate genome sequences for delimitation of species. (Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny) infers genome-to-genome distances between pairs of entirely or partially sequenced genomes, a digital, highly reliable estimator for the relatedness of genomes. Its application as an in-silico replacement for DDH was recently introduced. The main challenge in the implementation of such an application is to produce digital DDH values that must mimic the wet-lab DDH values as close as possible to ensure consistency in the Prokaryotic species concept. Results: Correlation and regression analyses were used to determine the best-performing methods and the most influential parameters. was further enriched with a set of new features such as confidence intervals for intergenomic distances obtained via resampling or via the statistical models for DDH prediction and an additional family of distance functions. As in previous analyses, obtained the highest agreement with wet-lab DDH among all tested methods, but improved models led to a further increase in the accuracy of DDH prediction. Confidence intervals yielded stable results when inferred from the statistical models, whereas those obtained via resampling showed marked differences between the underlying distance functions. Conclusions: Despite the high accuracy of -based DDH prediction, inferences from limited empirical data are always associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. It is thus crucial to enrich in-silico DDH replacements with confidence-interval estimation, enabling the user to statistically evaluate the outcomes. Such methodological advancements, easily accessible through the web service at http://ggdc.dsmz.de, are crucial steps towards a consistent and truly genome sequence-based classification of microorganisms.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-14-60

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 6,755

Metadata

Authors
Meier-Kolthoff, J. P., Auch, A. F., Klenk, H.-P., & Göker, M.
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2013-02-21
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
60-60
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116206245
Cited by
6,755
References
8
FWCI
54.33
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: Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-14-60
The paper
Meier-Kolthoff, J. P., Auch, A. F., Klenk, H.-P., & Göker, M. (2013). Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-60

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.