ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2026
Discordance Between 16S rRNA Similarity and Genome-Based Species Boundaries in Gluconobacter.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 16S rRNA gene is widely used for bacterial identification, but its resolving power is limited in several taxa. In the genus Gluconobacter, species boundaries remain unclear despite reliance on 16S-based classification. To examine these limitations, we analyzed all publicly available complete genomes (n = 12) together with curated 16S rRNA sequences and compared 16S rRNA sequences similarity with genome-based relatedness. Within the sampled complete genomes, 16S rRNA sequences were highly conserved and showed substantial overlap between intra- and interspecific similarities. In contrast, average nucleotide identity (ANI)-based divergence was pronounced: ANI values ranged from 79.7% to 100%, and G. oxydans included more than one genomic lineage. Notably, two strains (H24 and 1.637) showed higher ANI values (97.2%-97.4%) to G. thailandicus than to other G. oxydans strains. Even the hypervariable V4, V6, and V8 regions lacked clade-specific signatures, indicating limited species-level resolution within this group. Furthermore, type-strain 16S rRNA sequences of G. oxydans, G. frateurii, and G. japonicus show ≥ 99% similarity and are grouped within the same non-redundant representative in the SILVA NR99 database, indicating limited species-level resolution. These results demonstrate a clear mismatch between 16S rRNA sequences similarity and genomic structure in Gluconobacter. Genome-based criteria, supported by refined reference databases and validated gene markers, are essential for accurate taxonomy and microbiome-based analyses.
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.