Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

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

Recombination within natural populations of pathogenic bacteria: Short-term empirical estimates and long-term phylogenetic consequences

Open access
Feil, Edward J., Holmes, Edward C., Bessen, Debra E., Chan, Man-Suen, Day, Nicholas P. J., Enright, Mark C., Goldstein, Richard, Hood, Derek W., Kalia, Awdhesh, Moore, Catrin E., Zhou, Jiaji, Spratt, Brian G.·2001·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The identification of clones within bacterial populations is often taken as evidence for a low rate of recombination, but the validity of this inference is rarely examined. We have used statistical tests of congruence between gene trees to examine the extent and significance of recombination in six bacterial pathogens. For Neisseria meningitidis , Streptococcus pneumoniae , Streptococcus pyogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus , the congruence between the maximum likelihood trees reconstructed using seven house-keeping genes was in most cases no better than that between each tree and trees of random topology. The lack of congruence between gene trees in these four species, which include both naturally transformable and nontransformable species, is in three cases supported by high ratios of recombination to point mutation during clonal diversification (estimates of this parameter were not possible for Strep. pyogenes ). In contrast, gene trees constructed for Hemophilus influenzae and pathogenic isolates of Escherichia coli showed a higher degree of congruence, suggesting lower rates of recombination. The impact of recombination therefore varies between bacterial species but in many species is sufficient to obliterate the phylogenetic signal in gene trees.

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.98.1.182

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

See all 522

Metadata

Authors
Feil, E. J., Holmes, E. C., Bessen, D. E., Chan, M.-S., Day, N. P. J., Enright, M. C., Goldstein, R., Hood, D. W., Kalia, A., Moore, C. E., Zhou, J., & Spratt, B. G.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2001-01-02
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
182-187
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2151371624
Cited by
522
References
1
FWCI
11.07
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: Recombination within natural populations of pathogenic bacteria: Short-term empirical estimates and long-term phylogenetic consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.98.1.182
The paper
Feil, E. J., Holmes, E. C., Bessen, D. E., Chan, M.-S., Day, N. P. J., Enright, M. C., Goldstein, R., Hood, D. W., Kalia, A., Moore, C. E., Zhou, J., & Spratt, B. G. (2001). Recombination within natural populations of pathogenic bacteria: Short-term empirical estimates and long-term phylogenetic consequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.1.182

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.