Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 378

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium , Entamoeba , and Mastigamoeba

Open access
Bapteste, Eric, Brinkmann, Henner, Lee, Jennifer A., Moore, Dorothy V., Sensen, Christoph W., Gordon, Paul, Duruflé, Laure, Gaasterland, Terry, Lopez, Philippe, Müller, Miklós, Philippe, Hervé·2002·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of amoebae are poorly resolved. To address this difficult question, we have sequenced 1,280 expressed sequence tags from Mastigamoeba balamuthi and assembled a large data set containing 123 genes for representatives of three phenotypically highly divergent major amoeboid lineages: Pelobionta, Entamoebidae, and Mycetozoa. Phylogenetic reconstruction was performed on ≈25,000 aa positions for 30 species by using maximum-likelihood approaches. All well-established eukaryotic groups were recovered with high statistical support, validating our approach. Interestingly, the three amoeboid lineages strongly clustered together in agreement with the Conosa hypothesis [as defined by T. Cavalier-Smith (1998) Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 73, 203–266]. Two amitochondriate amoebae, the free-living Mastigamoeba and the human parasite Entamoeba , formed a significant sister group to the exclusion of the mycetozoan Dictyostelium . This result suggested that a part of the reductive process in the evolution of Entamoeba (e.g., loss of typical mitochondria) occurred in its free-living ancestors. Applying this inexpensive expressed sequence tag approach to many other lineages will surely improve our understanding of eukaryotic evolution.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.032662799

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 378

Metadata

Authors
Bapteste, E., Brinkmann, H., Lee, J. A., Moore, D. V., Sensen, C. W., Gordon, P., Duruflé, L., Gaasterland, T., Lopez, P., Müller, M., & Philippe, H.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2002-02-05
Volume
99
Issue
3
Pages
1414-1419
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2126487146
Cited by
378
References
5
FWCI
15.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium , Entamoeba , and Mastigamoeba. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.032662799
The paper
Bapteste, E., Brinkmann, H., Lee, J. A., Moore, D. V., Sensen, C. W., Gordon, P., Duruflé, L., Gaasterland, T., Lopez, P., Müller, M., & Philippe, H. (2002). The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium , Entamoeba , and Mastigamoeba. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.032662799

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.