CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogenomic Perspective on the Relationships and Evolutionary History of the Major Otocephalan Lineages

Dai, Wei, Zou, Ming, Yang, Liandong, Du, Kang, Chen, Weitao, Shen, Yanjun, Mayden, Richard L., He, Shunping·2018·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-18432-5PMC PMC5760653
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The phylogeny of otocephalan fishes is the subject of broad controversy based on morphological and molecular evidence. The primary unresolved issue pertaining to this lineage relates to the origin of Characiphysi, especially the paraphyly of Characiformes. The considerable uncertainty associated with this lineage has precluded a greater understanding of the origin and evolution of the clade. Herein, a phylogenomic approach was applied to resolve this debate. By analyzing 10 sets of transcriptomic data generated in this study and 12 sets of high-throughput data available in public databases, we obtained 1,110 single-copy orthologous genes (935,265 sites for analysis) from 22 actinopterygians, including 14 otocephalan fishes from six orders: Clupeiformes, Gonorynchiformes, Cypriniformes, Siluriformes, Characiformes, and Gymnotiformes. Based on a selection of 125 nuclear genes screened from single-gene maximum likelihood (ML) analyses and sequence bias testing, well-established relationships among Otocephala were reconstructed. We suggested that Gymnotiformes are more closely related to Characiformes than to Siluriformes and Characiformes are possibly paraphyletic. We also estimated that Otocephala originated in the Early-Late Jurassic, which postdates most previous estimations, and hypothesized scenarios of the early historical biogeographies of major otocephalan lineages.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-18432-5

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although molecular phylogenetic studies have demonstrated frequent discordance between molecular data and morphological expectations, the monophyly of Siluriphysi has generally been maintained in traditional interpretations from early single-locus analyses to recent multiple genomic-scale loci, primarily to conform to morphological predictions.

    “Although numerous molecular phylogenetic studies have demonstrated frequent discordance between molecular data and morphological expectations, the monophyly of Siluriphysi has generally been maintained in traditional interpretations, from early single-locus analyses48 to recent multiple genomic-scale loci,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 primarily to conform to morphological predictions.”

    From A genomic compendium of hundreds of teleost fishes reveals their evolutionary landscape (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. Stiassny, M. L. J., Wiley, E. O., Johnson, G. D. & de Carvalho, M. R. Gnathostome fishes. Assembling the Tree of Life, 410–429 (2004). · DOI
  2. Arratia, G. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny. Palaeo Ichthyologica 7, 1–168 (1997).
  3. Regan, C. T. The classification of the teleostean fishes of the order Ostariophysi.—1.Cyprinoidea. Annals and Magazine of Natural History: Series 8 8, 13–32 (1911). · DOI
  4. Lecointre, G. Molecular and morphological evidence for a Clupeomorpha-Ostariophysi sister-group relationship (Teleostei). Geobios 28(Suppl 2), 205–210 (1995). · DOI
  5. Lecointre, G. & Nelson, G. Clupeomorpha, sister-group of Ostariophysi. Interrelationships of fishes ( eds. Stiasney, M. L. J., Parenti, L. R. & Jhonson, G. D.), 193–207 (Academic Press, 1996). · DOI
  6. Arratia, G. Basal teleosts and teleostean phylogeny: Response to C. Patterson. Copeia 1998((4)), 1109–1113 (1998). · DOI
  7. Inoue, J. G., Miya, M., Tsukamoto, K. & Nishida, M. A mitogenomic perspective on the basal teleostean phylogeny: resolving higher-level relationships with longer DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 20, 275–285 (2001). · DOI
  8. Zaragueta-Bagils, R., Lavoue, S., Tillier, A., Bonillo, C. & Lecointre, G. Assessment of otocephalan and protacanthopterygian concepts in the light of multiple molecular phylogenies. Comptes Rendus Biologies 325, 1191–1207 (2002). · DOI
  9. Lê, H. L., Lecointre, G. & Perasso, R. A 28S rRNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: first steps in the analysis of conflict and congruence with morphologically based cladograms. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 2, 31–51 (1993). · DOI
  10. Fink, S. V. & Fink, W. L. Interrelationships of the ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 72, 297–353 (1981). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dimmick, W. W. & Larson, A. A molecular and morphological perspective on the phylogenetic relationships of the otophysan fishes. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 6, 120–133 (1996). · DOI
  12. Fink, S. V. & Fink, W. L. Interrelationships of the ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei). Interrelationships of Fishes (eds. Stiasney, M. L. J., Parenti, L. R. & Jhonson, G. D.), 209–249 (Academic Press, 1996). · DOI
  13. Ortí, G. & Meyer, A. Molecular evolution of ependymin and the phylogenetic resolution of early divergences among euteleost fishes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13, 556–573 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Ortí, G. & Meyer, A. The radiation of characiform fishes and the limits of resolution of mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Syst Biol 46, 75–100 (1997). · DOI
  15. Saitoh, K., Miya, M., Inoue, J. G., Ishiguro, N. B. & Nishida, M. Mitochondrial genomics of ostariophysan fishes: perspectives on phylogeny and biogeography. Journal of Molecular Evolution 56, 464–472 (2003). · DOI
  16. Lavoue, S. et al. Molecular systematics of the gonorynchiform fishes (Teleostei) based on whole mitogenome sequences: implications for higher-level relationships within the Otocephala. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 37, 165–177 (2005). · DOI
  17. Peng, Z., He, S., Wang, J., Wang, W. & Diogo, R. Mitochondrial molecular clocks and the origin of the major otocephalan clades (Pisces: Teleostei): A new insight. Gene 370, 113–124 (2006). · DOI
  18. Li, C., Lu, G. & Ortí, G. Optimal data partitioning and a test case for ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) based on ten nuclear loci. Syst Biol 57, 519–539 (2008). · DOI
  19. Alves-Gomes, J. A. The mitochondrial phylogeny of the South American electric fish (Gymnotiformes) and an alternative hypothesis for the otophysan historical biogeography. Gonorynchiformes and ostriophysan relationships: A comprehensive review ( eds. Grande, T., Poyato-Ariza, F. J. & Diogo, R.), 517–565 (Crc Press, 2010). · DOI
  20. Nakatani, M., Miya, M., Mabuchi, K., Saitoh, K. & Nishida, M. Evolutionary history of Otophysi (Teleostei), a major clade of the modern freshwater fishes: Pangaean origin and Mesozoic radiation. Bmc Evolutionary Biology 11, 177 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Near, T. J. et al. Resolution of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 13698–13703 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Chen, W. J., Lavoue, S. & Mayden, R. L. Evolutionary origin and early biogeography of otophysan fishes (Ostariophysi: Teleostei). Evolution; international journal of organic evolution 67, 2218–2239 (2013). · DOI
  23. Ishiguro, N. B., Miya, M. & Nishida, M. Basal euteleostean relationships: a mitogenomic perspective on the phylogenetic reality of the “Protacanthopterygii”. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 27, 476–488 (2003). · DOI
  24. Betancur, R. R. et al. The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Curr 5 (2013). · DOI
  25. Nelson, J. S. Fishes of the World, 4th Edition. Wiley, New York (2006).
  26. Helfman, G. S., Collette, B. B., Facey, D. E. & Bowen, B. W. The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, Evolution and Ecology, Second edition. John Wiley & Sons (2009).
  27. Santini, F., Harmon, L. J., Carnevale, G. & Alfaro, M. E. Did genome duplication drive the origin of teleosts? A comparative study of diversification in ray-finned fishes. Bmc Evolutionary Biology 9 (2009). · DOI
  28. Benton, M. J. et al. Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history. Palaeontol Electron 18 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lundberg, J. G. African-South American freshwater fish clades and continental drift: problems with a paradigm. Biological relationships between Africa and South America (ed. Goldblatt, P.) 156–199 (Yale Univ Press, 1993). · DOI
  30. Briggs, J. C. The biogeography of otophysan fishes (Ostariophysi: Otophysi): a new appraisal. Journal of Biogeography 32, 287–294 (2005). · DOI
  31. Saitoh, K. et al. Evidence from mitochondrial genomics supports the lower Mesozoic of South Asia as the time and place of basal divergence of cypriniform fishes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161, 633–662 (2011). · DOI
  32. Graybeal, A. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Systematic Biology 47, 9–17 (1998). · DOI
  33. Bremer, B. et al. More characters or more taxa for a robust phylogeny - Case study from the coffee family (Rubiaceae). Systematic Biology 48, 413–435 (1999). · DOI
  34. Townsend, J. P. Profiling phylogenetic informativeness. Systematic Biology 56, 222–231 (2007). · DOI
  35. Townsend, J. P. & Lopez-Giraldez, F. Optimal selection of gene and ingroup taxon sampling for resolving phylogenetic relationships. Systematic Biology 59, 446–457 (2010). · DOI
  36. Broughton, R. E., Betancur, R. R., Li, C., Arratia, G. & Ortí, G. Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis reveals the pattern and tempo of bony fish evolution. PLoS Curr 5 (2013). · DOI
  37. Diogo, R. Adaptations, homoplasies, constraints, and evolutionary trends: catfish morphology, phylogeny and evolution, a case study on theoretical phylogeny and macroevolution. Enfield, US: Crc Press (2005).
  38. Arroyave, J. & Stiassny, M. L. J. Phylogenetic relationships and the temporal context for the diversification of African characins of the family Alestidae (Ostariophysi: Characiformes): Evidence from DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 60, 385–397 (2011). · DOI
  39. Pollock, D. D., Zwickl, D. J., McGuire, J. A. & Hillis, D. M. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 51, 664–671 (2002). · DOI
  40. Zwickl, D. J. & Hillis, D. M. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol 51, 588–598 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Heath, T. A., Hedtke, S. M. & Hillis, D. M. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. J Syst Evol 46, 239–257 (2008).
  42. Nabhan, A. R. & Sarkar, I. N. The impact of taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference: a review of two decades of controversy. Briefings in Bioinformatics 13, 122–134 (2012). · DOI
  43. Blouin, C., Butt, D. & Roger, A. J. Impact of taxon sampling on the estimation of rates of evolution at sites. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22, 784–791 (2005). · DOI
  44. Fernandez, R. et al. Evaluating topological conflict in centipede phylogeny using transcriptomic data sets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 31, 1500–1513 (2014). · DOI
  45. Crampton-Platt, A. et al. Soup to tree: the phylogeny of beetles inferred by mitochondrial metagenomics of a bornean rainforest sample. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, 2302–2316 (2015). · DOI
  46. Huang, C. H. et al. Resolution of brassicaceae phylogeny using nuclear genes uncovers nested radiations and supports convergent morphological evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33, 394–412 (2016). · DOI
  47. Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H. & Philippe, H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nature Reviews Genetics 6, 361–375 (2005). · DOI
  48. Liang, D., Shen, X. X. & Zhang, P. One thousand two hundred ninety nuclear genes from a genome-wide survey support lungfishes as the sister group of tetrapods. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 1803–1807 (2013). · DOI
  49. Zeng, L. P. et al. Resolution of deep angiosperm phylogeny using conserved nuclear genes and estimates of early divergence times. Nat Commun 5, 4956 (2014). · DOI
  50. Huang, C. H. et al. Resolution of Brassicaceae phylogeny using nuclear genes uncovers nested radiations and supports convergent morphological evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33, 394–412 (2016). · DOI
  51. Lemer, S. et al. Re-evaluating the phylogeny of Sipuncula through transcriptomics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 83, 174–183 (2015). · DOI
  52. Saitoh, K. et al. Mitogenomic evolution and interrelationships of the Cypriniformes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi): the first evidence toward resolution of higher-level relationships of the world’s largest freshwater fish clade based on 59 whole mitogenome sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 63, 826–841 (2006). · DOI
  53. Drummond, A. J., Suchard, M. A., Xie, D. & Rambaut, A. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, 1969–1973 (2012). · DOI
  54. Rosen, D. E. & Greenwood, P. H. Origin of the Weberian apparatus and the relationships of the ostariophysan and gonorynchiform fishes. Am Mus Novit 2428, 1–25 (1970).
  55. Betancur, R. R. et al. Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes. Bmc Evolutionary Biology 17, 162 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  56. Mago-Leccia, F. & Zaret, T. M. The taxonomic status of Rhabdolichops troscheli (Kaup, 1856), and speculations on gymnotiform evolution. Environmental Biology of Fishes 3, 379–384 (1978). · DOI
  57. Alves-gomes, J. A., Ortí, G., Haygood, M., Heiligenberg, W. & Meyer, A. Phylogenetic analysis of the South-American electric fishes (Order Gymnotiformes) and the evolution of their electrogenic System - a synthesis based on morphology, electrophysiology, and mitochondrial sequence data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 12, 298–318 (1995).
  58. Roberts, T. R. Interrelationships of ostariophysans. Interrelationships of Fishes (eds. Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S. and Patterson, C.), 373–395 (Academic Press, 1973).
  59. Maisey, J. G. Continental break up and the distribution of fishes of Western Gondwana during the Early Cretaceous. Cretaceous Res 21, 281–314 (2000). · DOI
  60. Calcagnotto, D., Schaefer, S. A. & DeSalle, R. Relationships among characiform fishes inferred from analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 36, 135–153 (2005). · DOI
  61. Rand, H. M. & Mabesoone, J. M. Northeastern Brazil and the final separation of South-America and Africa. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 38, 163–183 (1982). · DOI
  62. Barthel, K. W., Swinburne, N. H. M. & Conway Morris, S. Solnhofen: a study in Mesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994).
  63. Wenz, S. Rubiesichthys gregalis ng, n. sp., Pisces, Gonorhynchiformes, du Crétacé inférieur du Montsech (Province de Lérida, Espagne. Bulletin du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle 6, 275–285 (1984).
  64. Poyato-Ariza, F. J. A revision of Rubiesichthys gregalis WENZ 1984 (Ostariophysi, Gonorynchiformes), from the Early Cretaceous of Spain. In: Arratia, G., Viohl, G. (Eds.), Mesozoic Fishes–Systematics and Paleoecology. Verlag Dr. F. Pfeil, München, Germany, 319–328 (1996).
  65. Patterson, C. The distribution of Mesozoic freshwater fishes. Memoires du Museum National de Histoire Naturelle, Series A. Zoology 88, 156–173 (1975).
  66. Patterson, C. Chanoides, a marine Eocene otophysan fish (Teleostei: Ostariophysi). J. Vert. Paleo 4, 430–456 (1984). · DOI
  67. Filleul, A. & Maisey, J. G. Redescription of Santanichthys diasii (Otophysi, characiformes) from the Albian of the Santana formation and comments on its implications for otophysan relationships. Am Mus Novit 3455, 918 (2004). · DOI
  68. Pitman, W. C., III, Cande, S., LaBrecque, J. & Pindell, J. Fragmentation of Gondwana: the separation of Africa from South America. In: Goldblatt, P. (Eds.), Biological Relationships Between Africa And South America. Yale University Press, Connecticut, US, 15–34 (1993). · DOI
  69. Mayden, R. L. et al. Inferring the Tree of Life of the order Cypriniformes, the earth’s most diverse clade of freshwater fishes: Implications of varied taxon and character sampling. J Syst Evol 46, 424–438 (2008).
  70. Sullivan, J. P., Lundberg, J. G. & Hardman, M. A phylogenetic analysis of the major groups of catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes) using rag1 and rag2 nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 41, 636–662 (2006). · DOI
  71. Lundberg, J. G., Sullivan, J. P., Rodiles-Hernandez, R. & Hendrickson, D. A. Discovery of African roots for the Mesoamerican Chiapas catfish, Lacantunia enigmatica, requires an ancient intercontinental passage. P Acad Nat Sci Phila 156, 39–53 (2007). · DOI
  72. Hardman, M. The phylogenetic relationships among non-diplomystid catfishes as inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences; the search for the ictalurid sister taxon (Otophysi: Siluriformes). Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 37, 700–720 (2005). · DOI
  73. Mariguela, T. C., Roxo, F. F., Foresti, F. & Oliveira, C. Phylogeny and biogeography of Triportheidae (Teleostei: Characiformes) based on molecular data. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 96, 130–139 (2016). · DOI
  74. Woodward, A. S. Considerações sobre alguns peixes Ter-ciários dos schistos de Taubaté, Estado de São Paulo. Brasil. Rev. Mus. Paulista, São Paulo 3, 63–70 (1898).
  75. Oliveira, C. et al. Phylogenetic relationships within the speciose family Characidae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on multilocus analysis and extensive ingroup sampling. Bmc Evolutionary Biology 11, 1–25 (2011). · DOI
  76. Gayet, M. & Meunier, F. J. First discovery of fossil Gymnotiformes (Pisces, Ostariophysi) in the Upper Miocene of Bolivia. Cr Acad Sci Ii 313, 471–476 (1991).
  77. Sparks, J. & Smith, W. Freshwater fishes, dispersal ability, and nonevidence: “gondwana life rafts” to the rescue. Syst Biol 54, 158–165 (2005). · DOI
  78. Buckup, P. A. The monophyly of the Characidiinae, a neotropical group of characiform fishes (Teleostei, Ostariophysi). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 108, 225–245 (1993). · DOI
  79. Buckup, P. A. & Buckup, P. A. Redescription of Characidium fasciatum, type species of the Characidiinae (Teleostei, Characiformes). Copeia 1992. Copeia 1992, 1066–1073 (1992). · DOI
  80. Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol 29, 644 (2011). · DOI
  81. Kasprzyk, A. BioMart: driving a paradigm change in biological data management. Database, 2011, (2011-01-01) 2011, 56–65 (2011).
  82. Zou, M., Guo, B., Tao, W., Arratia, G. & He, S. Integrating multi-origin expression data improves the resolution of deep phylogeny of ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii). Scientific Reports 2, 665 (2012). · DOI
  83. Tatusova, T. A. & Madden, T. L. BLAST 2 SEQUENCES, a new tool for comparing protein and nucleotide sequences. Fems Microbiol Lett 174, 247–250 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  84. Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 772–780 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  85. Suyama, M., Torrents, D. & Bork, P. PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res 34, W609 (2006). · DOI
  86. Ranwez, V., Harispe, S., Delsuc, F. & Douzery, E. J. P. MACSE: multiple alignment of coding sequences accounting for frameshifts and stop codons. PLoS One 6 (2011). · DOI
  87. Castresana, J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17, 540–552 (2000). · DOI
  88. Stamatakis, A. RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22, 2688–2690 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  89. Posada, D. & Crandall, K. A. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817–818 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  90. Kuck, P., Mayer, C., Wagele, J. W. & Misof, B. Long branch effects distort maximum likelihood phylogenies in simulations despite selection of the correct model. PLoS One 7 (2012). · DOI
  91. Xia, X. H., Xie, Z., Salemi, M., Chen, L. & Wang, Y. An index of substitution saturation and its application. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 26, 1–7 (2003). · DOI
  92. Kuhner, M. K. & Felsenstein, J. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates (Vol 11, Pg 459, 1994). Molecular Biology and Evolution 12, 525–525 (1995).
  93. Naylor, G. J. P. & Brown, W. M. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Systematic Biology 47, 61–76 (1998). · DOI
  94. Halanych, K. M. & Robinson, T. J. Multiple substitutions affect the phylogenetic utility of cytochrome b and 12S rDNA data: Examining a rapid radiation in Leporid (Lagomorpha) evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48, 369–379 (1999). · DOI
  95. Struck, T. H., Nesnidal, M. P., Purschke, G. & Halanych, K. M. Detecting possibly saturated positions in 18S and 28S sequences and their influence on phylogenetic reconstruction of Annelida (Lophotrochozoa). Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 48, 628–645 (2008). · DOI
  96. Ihaka, R. & Gentleman, R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5, 299–314 (1996). · DOI
  97. Shimodaira, H. & Hasegawa, M. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17, 1246–1247 (2001). · DOI
  98. Shimodaira, H. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Systematic Biology 51, 492–508 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  99. Yang, Z. H. PAML 4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24, 1586–1591 (2007). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dai, W., Zou, M., Yang, L., Du, K., Chen, W., Shen, Y., Mayden, R. L., & He, S.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-01-09
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-18432-5
PMC
PMC5760653
Cited by
26
References
10
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review