Question: Should we consider unnamed genomospecies in genomic analyses?
gravatar for Alec Watanabe
2.2 years ago by
Alec Watanabe60 wrote:


As the title says, should we include unnamed genomospecies in comparative genomics analyses, reverse vaccinology, CRISPR prediction, etc? (i.e. prediction of pan genome, core genome, accessory genome, etc).

I read that the "Report of the ad hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics" states: It is recommended that a distinct genomospecies that cannot be differenciated from another genomospecies on the basis of any known phenotypic property not be named until they can be differenciated by some phenotypic property.

So what I understood while searching a little bit about genomospecies is that a genomospecies is a new species basically because it presented differences at the genetic level but researchers couldn't identify phenotypic differences, is that right?

How should we proceed with these data? Include it in the analysis or not?


ADD COMMENTlink written 2.2 years ago by Alec Watanabe60

not be named until they can be differentiated by some phenotypic property.

It doesn't say it shouldn't be considered, only it shouldn't be named. There are examples from the literature showing plenty of differences between "genomospecies", e.g. Campylobacter concisus Genomospecies 2 Is Better Adapted to the Human Gastrointestinal Tract as Compared with Campylobacter concisus Genomospecies 1.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by h.mon31k
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1036 users visited in the last hour