Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Major Structural Differences and Novel Potential Virulence Mechanisms from the Genomes of Multiple Campylobacter Species

Open access
Fouts, Derrick E, Mongodin, Emmanuel F, Mandrell, Robert E, Miller, William G, Rasko, David A, Ravel, Jacques, Brinkac, Lauren M, DeBoy, Robert T, Parker, Craig T, Daugherty, Sean C, Dodson, Robert J, Durkin, A. Scott, Madupu, Ramana, Sullivan, Steven A, Shetty, Jyoti U, Ayodeji, Mobolanle A, Shvartsbeyn, Alla, Schatz, Michael C, Badger, Jonathan H, Fraser, Claire M, Nelson, Karen E·2005·PLoS Biology

Abstract

Sequencing and comparative genome analysis of four strains of Campylobacter including C. lari RM2100, C. upsaliensis RM3195, and C. coli RM2228 has revealed major structural differences that are associated with the insertion of phage- and plasmid-like genomic islands, as well as major variations in the lipooligosaccharide complex. Poly G tracts are longer, are greater in number, and show greater variability in C. upsaliensis than in the other species. Many genes involved in host colonization, including racR/S, cadF, cdt, ciaB, and flagellin genes, are conserved across the species, but variations that appear to be species specific are evident for a lipooligosaccharide locus, a capsular (extracellular) polysaccharide locus, and a novel Campylobacter putative licABCD virulence locus. The strains also vary in their metabolic profiles, as well as their resistance profiles to a range of antibiotics. It is evident that the newly identified hypothetical and conserved hypothetical proteins, as well as uncharacterized two-component regulatory systems and membrane proteins, may hold additional significant information on the major differences in virulence among the species, as well as the specificity of the strains for particular hosts.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030015

Cites

87 of 87 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 87 references

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Fouts, D. E., Mongodin, E. F., Mandrell, R. E., Miller, W. G., Rasko, D. A., Ravel, J., Brinkac, L. M., DeBoy, R. T., Parker, C. T., Daugherty, S. C., Dodson, R. J., Durkin, A. S., Madupu, R., Sullivan, S. A., Shetty, J. U., Ayodeji, M. A., Shvartsbeyn, A., Schatz, M. C., Badger, J. H., Fraser, C. M., & Nelson, K. E.
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2005-01-04
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e15
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W1964486506
Cited by
542
References
87
FWCI
59.93
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: Major Structural Differences and Novel Potential Virulence Mechanisms from the Genomes of Multiple Campylobacter Species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030015
The paper
Fouts, D. E., Mongodin, E. F., Mandrell, R. E., Miller, W. G., Rasko, D. A., Ravel, J., Brinkac, L. M., DeBoy, R. T., Parker, C. T., Daugherty, S. C., Dodson, R. J., Durkin, A. S., Madupu, R., Sullivan, S. A., Shetty, J. U., Ayodeji, M. A., Shvartsbeyn, A., Schatz, M. C., Badger, J. H., . . . Nelson, K. E. (2005). Major Structural Differences and Novel Potential Virulence Mechanisms from the Genomes of Multiple Campylobacter Species. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030015

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.