Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The genetic basis of a plant–insect coevolutionary key innovation

Open access
Wheat, Christopher W., Vogel, Heiko, Wittstock, Ute, Braby, Michael F., Underwood, Dessie, Mitchell-Olds, Thomas·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Ehrlich and Raven formally introduced the concept of stepwise coevolution using butterfly and angiosperm interactions in an attempt to account for the impressive biological diversity of these groups. However, many biologists currently envision butterflies evolving 50 to 30 million years (Myr) after the major angiosperm radiation and thus reject coevolutionary origins of butterfly biodiversity. The unresolved central tenet of Ehrlich and Raven's theory is that evolution of plant chemical defenses is followed closely by biochemical adaptation in insect herbivores, and that newly evolved detoxification mechanisms result in adaptive radiation of herbivore lineages. Using one of their original butterfly-host plant systems, the Pieridae, we identify a pierid glucosinolate detoxification mechanism, nitrile-specifier protein (NSP), as a key innovation. Larval NSP activity matches the distribution of glucosinolate in their host plants. Moreover, by using five different temporal estimates, NSP seems to have evolved shortly after the evolution of the host plant group (Brassicales) (≈10 Myr). An adaptive radiation of these glucosinolate-feeding Pierinae followed, resulting in significantly elevated species numbers compared with related clades. Mechanistic understanding in its proper historical context documents more ancient and dynamic plant–insect interactions than previously envisioned. Moreover, these mechanistic insights provide the tools for detailed molecular studies of coevolution from both the plant and insect perspectives.

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.0706229104

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Wheat, C. W., Vogel, H., Wittstock, U., Braby, M. F., Underwood, D., & Mitchell-Olds, T.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-12-18
Volume
104
Issue
51
Pages
20427-20431
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2023182268
Cited by
363
References
6
FWCI
27.93
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 genetic basis of a plant–insect coevolutionary key innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0706229104
The paper
Wheat, C. W., Vogel, H., Wittstock, U., Braby, M. F., Underwood, D., & Mitchell-Olds, T. (2007). The genetic basis of a plant–insect coevolutionary key innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706229104

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.