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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Dating of the human–ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA.
Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H., & Yano, T.-A. (1985) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02101694 · Cited by 8,687
Cited by
Baker, A. C. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132417 · Cited by 1,069
Diversity and community structure of symbiotic dinoflagellates from Caribbean coral reefs
T., L. (2002) · Marine Biology · doi:10.1007/s00227-002-0829-2 · Cited by 729
Multispecies Microbial Mutualisms on Coral Reefs: The Host as a Habitat
Knowlton, N., & Rohwer, F. (2003) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/378684 · Cited by 506
STAT, M., CARTER, D., & HOEGHGULDBERG, O. (2006) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2006.04.001 · Cited by 366
THORNHILL, D. J., LAJEUNESSE, T. C., & SANTOS, S. R. (2007) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03576.x · Cited by 305
Self-citation
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.