ArticleBMC genomics2024
Genomic and taxonomic evaluation of 38 Treponema prophage sequences.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Genomics of Lactococcus spp. From Global Aquaculture Outbreaks Reveals Virulence Determinants, Antibiotic Resistance, and Phage Defence Mechanisms.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Metagenomic Comparison of Gut Microbes ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite Spirochetales being a ubiquitous and medically important order of bacteria infecting both humans and animals, there is extremely limited information regarding their bacteriophages. Of the genus Treponema, there is just a single reported characterised prophage.
resultsWe applied a bioinformatic approach on 24 previously published Treponema genomes to identify and characterise putative treponemal prophages. Thirteen of the genomes did not contain any detectable prophage regions. The remaining eleven contained 38 prophage sequences, with between one and eight putative prophages in each bacterial genome. The prophage regions ranged from 12.4 to 75.1 kb, with between 27 and 171 protein coding sequences. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that 24 of the prophages formed three distinct sequence clusters, identifying putative myoviral and siphoviral morphology. ViPTree analysis demonstrated that the identified sequences were novel when compared to known double stranded DNA bacteriophage genomes.
conclusionsIn this study, we have started to address the knowledge gap on treponeme bacteriophages by characterising 38 prophage sequences in 24 treponeme genomes. Using bioinformatic approaches, we have been able to identify and compare the prophage-like elements with respect to other bacteriophages, their gene content, and their potential to be a functional and inducible bacteriophage, which in turn can help focus our attention on specific prophages to investigate further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.