2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24128-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, strains either belong to the same natural biological entity at the species level and have > 95% ANI, or belong to different species and have < 82% ANI. This observation could be due to biases in the sampling of available genomes, or the all-against-all pairwise comparisons included mostly distantly-related species [ 11 ]. In our study that provided a detailed examination of closely related species, the ~ 85–93% ANI among A. tumefaciens genomospecies (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other words, strains either belong to the same natural biological entity at the species level and have > 95% ANI, or belong to different species and have < 82% ANI. This observation could be due to biases in the sampling of available genomes, or the all-against-all pairwise comparisons included mostly distantly-related species [ 11 ]. In our study that provided a detailed examination of closely related species, the ~ 85–93% ANI among A. tumefaciens genomospecies (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, while genomospecies defined by overall genome divergence were suggested to represent distinct biological entities [ 5 9 ], the exact criteria for establishing the species boundaries are disputed. Although 95% average nucleotide identity (ANI) across the conserved parts of genomes was proposed as a universal boundary for defining species in bacteria [ 10 ], this criterion was challenged [ 11 ]. Additionally, ANI values alone do not provide information such as gene content or phylogenetic relationships, which are critical in understanding biological entities [ 4 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when genome data are compared globally, i.e. not taking strain cohabitation into account, it is not uncommon for pairs of strains to have ANI values between 83% and 95% ( 5 , 34 ).…”
Section: Average Nucleotide Identity For Delineating Speciesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors concluded that a clear genetic discontinuum and species boundary were evident from the unprecedented large-scale ANI analysis and claimed that the 95% ANI threshold represented an accurate threshold for demarcating almost all currently named prokaryotic species. Murray et al [100] argued that the creation of a universal genetic boundary among the named species in the current NCBI taxonomy was questionable and that it resulted from substantially biased sampling in genome sequencing. They urged caution against being excessively confident in using 95% ANI for microbial species delineation, since the high benchmarks reported in the paper were inflated by the use of highly redundant genomes.…”
Section: Challenges Of Curtobacterium Taxonomic Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Free living microbes exploring different habitats are more likely to exhibit a genetic continuum. Selection is also unlikely to produce a universal genetic boundary, as microbial species are unique in nature, with each species subject to its own evolutionary and ecological forces [100].…”
Section: Challenges Of Curtobacterium Taxonomic Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%