The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative genomics of bacterial and plant folate synthesis and salvage: predictions and validations
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Folate synthesis and salvage pathways are relatively well known from classical biochemistry and genetics but they have not been subjected to comparative genomic analysis. The availability of genome sequences from hundreds of diverse bacteria, and from Arabidopsis thaliana, enabled such an analysis using the SEED database and its tools. This study reports the results of the analysis and integrates them with new and existing experimental data. RESULTS: Based on sequence similarity and the clustering, fusion, and phylogenetic distribution of genes, several functional predictions emerged from this analysis. For bacteria, these included the existence of novel GTP cyclohydrolase I and folylpolyglutamate synthase gene families, and of a trifunctional p-aminobenzoate synthesis gene. For plants and bacteria, the predictions comprised the identities of a 'missing' folate synthesis gene (folQ) and of a folate transporter, and the absence from plants of a folate salvage enzyme. Genetic and biochemical tests bore out these predictions. CONCLUSION: For bacteria, these results demonstrate that much can be learnt from comparative genomics, even for well-explored primary metabolic pathways. For plants, the findings particularly illustrate the potential for rapid functional assignment of unknown genes that have prokaryotic homologs, by analyzing which genes are associated with the latter. More generally, our data indicate how combined genomic analysis of both plants and prokaryotes can be more powerful than isolated examination of either group alone.
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
Folic Acid: Nutritional Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Role in Disease Processes
Lucock, M. (2000) · Molecular Genetics and Metabolism · doi:10.1006/mgme.2000.3027 · Cited by 815
Trimethoprim and sulfonamide resistance.
Huovinen, P., Sundström, L., Swedberg, G., & Sköld, O. (1995) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.39.2.279 · Cited by 523
Cited by
Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis
Yano, J. M., Yu, K., Donaldson, G. P., Shastri, G. G., Ann, P., Ma, L., Nagler, C. R., Ismagilov, R. F., Mazmanian, S. K., & Hsiao, E. Y. (2015) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.047 · Cited by 3,614
Bacteria as vitamin suppliers to their host: A gut microbiota perspective
LeBlanc, J. G., Milani, C., de Giori, G. S., Sesma, F., van Sinderen, D., & Ventura, M. (2013) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2012.08.005 · Cited by 1,613
Fackelmann, G., Manghi, P., Carlino, N., Heidrich, V., Piccinno, G., Ricci, L., Piperni, E., Arrè, A., Bakker, E., Creedon, A. C., et al. (2025) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-024-01870-z · Cited by 142
Sousa, F. L., & Martin, W. F. (2014) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics · doi:10.1016/j.bbabio.2014.02.001 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- de Crécy-Lagard, V., El Yacoubi, B., de la Garza, R., Noiriel, A., & Hanson, A. D.
- Venue
- BMC Genomics
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 245
- ISSN
- 1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027426795
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.10
- 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: Comparative genomics of bacterial and plant folate synthesis and salvage: predictions and validations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2164-8-245
- The paper
- de Crécy-Lagard, V., El Yacoubi, B., de la Garza, R., Noiriel, A., & Hanson, A. D. (2007). Comparative genomics of bacterial and plant folate synthesis and salvage: predictions and validations. BMC Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-245
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.