Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 769

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome-Based Taxonomic Classification of the Phylum Actinobacteria

Open access
Nouioui, Imen, Carro, Lorena, García-López, Marina, Meier-Kolthoff, Jan P., Woyke, Tanja, Kyrpides, Nikos C., Pukall, Rüdiger, Klenk, Hans-Peter, Goodfellow, Michael, Göker, Markus·2018·Frontiers in Microbiology

Abstract

but even so there remains a need to further clarify relationships within a taxon that encompasses organisms of agricultural, biotechnological, clinical, and ecological importance. Classification of the morphologically diverse bacteria belonging to this large phylum based on a limited number of features has proved to be difficult, not least when taxonomic decisions rested heavily on interpretation of poorly resolved 16S rRNA gene trees. Here, draft genome sequences of a large collection of actinobacterial type strains were used to infer phylogenetic trees from genome-scale data using principles drawn from phylogenetic systematics. The majority of taxa were found to be monophyletic but several orders, families, and genera, as well as many species and a few subspecies were shown to be in need of revision leading to proposals for the recognition of 2 orders, 10 families, and 17 genera, as well as the transfer of over 100 species to other genera. In addition, emended descriptions are given for many species mainly involving the addition of data on genome size and DNA G+C content, the former can be considered to be a valuable taxonomic marker in actinobacterial systematics. Many of the incongruities detected when the results of the present study were compared with existing classifications had been recognized from 16S rRNA gene trees though whole-genome phylogenies proved to be much better resolved. The few significant incongruities found between 16S/23S rRNA and whole genome trees underline the pitfalls inherent in phylogenies based upon single gene sequences. Similarly good congruence was found between the discontinuous distribution of phenotypic properties and taxa delineated in the phylogenetic trees though diverse non-monophyletic taxa appeared to be based on the use of plesiomorphic character states as diagnostic features.

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 · 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02007

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 769

Metadata

Authors
Nouioui, I., Carro, L., García-López, M., Meier-Kolthoff, J. P., Woyke, T., Kyrpides, N. C., Pukall, R., Klenk, H.-P., Goodfellow, M., & Göker, M.
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Published
2018-08-22
Volume
9
Pages
2007-2007
ISSN
1664-302X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888547803
Cited by
769
References
7
FWCI
46.69
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-Based Taxonomic Classification of the Phylum Actinobacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02007
The paper
Nouioui, I., Carro, L., García-López, M., Meier-Kolthoff, J. P., Woyke, T., Kyrpides, N. C., Pukall, R., Klenk, H.-P., Goodfellow, M., & Göker, M. (2018). Genome-Based Taxonomic Classification of the Phylum Actinobacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02007

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.