Collection and curation of prokaryotic genome assemblies from type strains at NCBI

References

1. Karsch-Mizrachi I, Takagi T, Cochrane G. The international nucleotide sequence database collaboration. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:D48–D51 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
2. O’Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, Ciufo S, Haddad D et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:D733–45 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
3. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton CL, Kannan S et al. NCBI Taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford) 2020; 2020:baaa062 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
4. Federhen S. Type material in the NCBI Taxonomy Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:D1086–98 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
5. Ciufo S, Kannan S, Sharma S, Badretdin A, Clark K et al. Using average nucleotide identity to improve taxonomic assignments in prokaryotic genomes at the NCBI. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2386–2392 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
6. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes prokaryotic code (2008 revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S7–S111 [View Article]
   [Google Scholar]
7. Federhen S. Type material in the NCBI Taxonomy Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:D1086–98 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
8. Parte AC, Sardà Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Reimer LC, Göker M. List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5607–5612 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
9. Oren A, Garrity GM, Parte AC. Why are so many effectively published names of prokaryotic taxa never validated?. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2125–2129 [View Article] [PubMed]
   [Google Scholar]
10. Oren A, Garrity GM, Parker CT, Chuvochina M, Trujillo ME. Lists of names of prokaryotic Candidatus taxa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3956–4042 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
11. Reynaud Y, Pitchford S, De Decker S, Wikfors GH, Brown CL. Molecular typing of environmental and clinical strains of Vibrio vulnificus isolated in the northeastern USA. PLoS One 2013; 8:e83357 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
12. Carter AT, Peck MW. Genomes, neurotoxins and biology of Clostridium botulinum Group I and Group II. Res Microbiol 2015; 166:303–317 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
13. Aagaard MEY, Kirk KF, Nielsen H, Nielsen HL. High genetic diversity in Campylobacter concisus isolates from patients with microscopic colitis. Gut Pathog 2021; 13:3 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dunlap CA, Bowman MJ, Schisler DA, Rooney AP. Genome analysis shows Bacillus axarquiensis is not a later heterotypic synonym of Bacillus mojavensis; reclassification of Bacillus malacitensis and Brevibacterium halotolerans as heterotypic synonyms of Bacillus axarquiensis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2438–2443 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
15. Konstantinidis KT, Tiedje JM. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:2567–2572 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hugenholtz P, Chuvochina M, Oren A, Parks DH, Soo RM. Prokaryotic taxonomy and nomenclature in the age of big sequence data. ISME J 2021; 15:1879–1892 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
17. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil P-A, Rinke C, Mussig AJ et al. A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 2020; 38:1079–1086 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
18. Vandamme P, Sutcliffe I. Out with the old and in with the new: time to rethink twentieth century chemotaxonomic practices in bacterial taxonomy. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:11 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
19. Sutcliffe IC, Rosselló-Móra R, Trujillo ME. Addressing the sublime scale of the microbial world: reconciling an appreciation of microbial diversity with the need to describe species. New Microbes New Infect 2021; 43:100931 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
20. Li W, O’Neill KR, Haft DH, DiCuccio M, Chetvernin V et al. RefSeq: expanding the prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline reach with protein family model curation. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49:D1020–D1028 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
21. Salvà-Serra F, Jaén-Luchoro D, Karlsson R, Bennasar-Figueras A, Jakobsson HE et al. Beware of false “Type Strain” genome sequences. Microbiol Resour Announc 2019; 8:22 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
22. Volpiano CG, Sant’Anna FH, Ambrosini A, de São José JFB, Beneduzi A et al. Genomic metrics applied to Rhizobiales (Hyphomicrobiales): species reclassification, identification of unauthentic genomes and false type strains. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:614957 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
23. Sanford RA, Lloyd KG, Konstantinidis KT, Löffler FE. Microbial Taxonomy Run Amok. Trends Microbiol 2021; 29:394–404 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hedlund BP, Chuvochina M, Hugenholtz P, Konstantinidis KT, Murray AE et al. SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data. Nat Microbiol 2022; 7:1702–1708 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
25. Pallen MJ. The status Candidatus for uncultured taxa of Bacteria and Archaea: SWOT analysis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
26. Pallen MJ, Rodriguez-R LM, Alikhan N-F. Naming the unnamed: over 65,000 Candidatus names for unnamed Archaea and Bacteria in the Genome Taxonomy Database. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
27. Sutcliffe IC, Dijkshoorn L, Whitman WB, Executive Board OBOTI. Minutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes online discussion on the proposed use of gene sequences as type for naming of prokaryotes, and outcome of vote. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4416–4417 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]