Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GENETIC COMPARISONS OF FRESHLY ISOLATED VERSUS CULTURED SYMBIOTIC DINOFLAGELLATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRAPOLATING TO THE INTACT SYMBIOSIS

Santos, Scott R., Taylor, Derek J., Coffroth, Mary Alice·2001·Journal of Phycology

Abstract

Zooxanthellae, algal symbionts in divergent marine invertebrate hosts, are a genetically heterogeneous group. All species descriptions and most physiological and infectivity studies of zooxanthellae have been conducted using cultured material. However, few studies have attempted to quantify the representation of cultures isolated from cnidarians to the in hospite zooxanthella populations of the individual host or host species from which they were established. RFLPs of small subunit (18S) rDNA, internal transcribed spacer (ITS)‐rDNA sequence data, and microsatellite analyses were conducted to assess the relatedness between cultured zooxanthellae and the in hospite populations of the individual host or host species from which they were isolated. RFLP data demonstrated that cultures may represent either the numerically dominant symbiont or ones present in lower number. ITS‐rDNA sequences from zooxanthella cultures were disconcordant with ITS‐rDNA sequences identified from in hospite zooxanthellae of the same host species, and microsatellites present in in hospite zooxanthella populations were absent from the corresponding cultures. Finally, reexamination of the literature revealed examples of zooxanthella cultures being nonrepresentative of in hospite populations. These data suggest that, in most cases, cultures are a subset of the original in hospite population. Factors such as failing to homogenize bulk cultures before transfer, growth medium used, and the picking of single motile cells may contribute to many zooxanthella cultures being nonrepresentative.

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 · 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00194.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Santos, S. R., Taylor, D. J., & Coffroth, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Phycology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
900-912
ISSN
  • 0022-3646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-8817
OpenAlex
W2107969203
Cited by
195
References
1
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GENETIC COMPARISONS OF FRESHLY ISOLATED VERSUS CULTURED SYMBIOTIC DINOFLAGELLATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRAPOLATING TO THE INTACT SYMBIOSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00194.x
The paper
Santos, S. R., Taylor, D. J., & Coffroth, M. A. (2001). GENETIC COMPARISONS OF FRESHLY ISOLATED VERSUS CULTURED SYMBIOTIC DINOFLAGELLATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRAPOLATING TO THE INTACT SYMBIOSIS. Journal of Phycology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00194.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.