The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical structure of host–phage interactions
Open accessAbstract
Interactions between bacteria and the viruses that infect them (i.e., phages) have profound effects on biological processes, but despite their importance, little is known on the general structure of infection and resistance between most phages and bacteria. For example, are bacteria–phage communities characterized by complex patterns of overlapping exploitation networks, do they conform to a more ordered general pattern across all communities, or are they idiosyncratic and hard to predict from one ecosystem to the next? To answer these questions, we collect and present a detailed metaanalysis of 38 laboratory-verified studies of host–phage interactions representing almost 12,000 distinct experimental infection assays across a broad spectrum of taxa, habitat, and mode of selection. In so doing, we present evidence that currently available host–phage infection networks are statistically different from random networks and that they possess a characteristic nested structure. This nested structure is typified by the finding that hard to infect bacteria are infected by generalist phages (and not specialist phages) and that easy to infect bacteria are infected by generalist and specialist phages. Moreover, we find that currently available host–phage infection networks do not typically possess a modular structure. We explore possible underlying mechanisms and significance of the observed nested host–phage interaction structure. In addition, given that most of the available host–phage infection networks examined here are composed of taxa separated by short phylogenetic distances, we propose that the lack of modularity is a scale-dependent effect, and then, we describe experimental studies to test whether modular patterns exist at macroevolutionary scales.
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
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the sargasso sea
Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J. F., Halpern, A. L., Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E., Nelson, W., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093857 · Cited by 4,376
Resolution limit in community detection
Fortunato, S., & Barthélemy, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 · Cited by 3,024
Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment
Tyson, G. W., Chapman, J., Hugenholtz, P., Allen, E. E., Ram, R. J., Richardson, P. M., Solovyev, V. V., Rubin, E. M., Rokhsar, D. S., & Banfield, J. F. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02340 · Cited by 2,417
Cited by
Intestinal phages interact with bacteria and are involved in human diseases
Shuwen, H., & Kefeng, D. (2022) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2022.2113717 · Cited by 124
Bacteriophage–host interaction: from splendid isolation into a messy reality
Brüssow, H. (2013) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2013.04.007 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Flores, C. O., Meyer, J. R., Valverde, S., Farr, L., & Weitz, J. S.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-06-27
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 28
- Pages
- E288-97
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2088333086
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 18.88
- 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
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.