Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is Penicillium monophyletic? An evaluation of phylogeny in the family Trichocomaceae from 18S, 5.8S and ITS ribosomal DNA sequence data

Berbee, Mary L., Yoshimura, Atsuko, Sugiyama, Junta, Taylor, John W.·1995·Mycologia

Abstract

Using ribosomal DNA sequences from 17 fungi, we evaluated the monophylly of Penicillium and the phylogeny in the ascomycete family Trichocomaceae (= Eurotiaceae). We determined the 5.8S and internal transcribed spacer rDNA sequences for 13 species, and the 18S rDNA sequences for Eupenicillium javanicum and Neosartorya fischeri. After including additional published 18S, 5.8S and ITS rDNA sequences, our data set consisted of 2204 aligned sites for 17 taxa and yielded 16 equally parsimonious trees, each requiring 609 nucleotide substitutions. Indicating that Penicillium is not monophyletic, all the trees show Eupenicillium javanicum (with a Penicillium state) grouping with the Aspergillus-producing taxa Neosartorya fischeri and Eurotium rubrum rather than the Penicillium-producing Talaromyces flavus var. macrosporus or Talaromyces bacillisporus. The branch separating Eupenicillium javanicum from Talaromyces flavus and Talaromyces bacillisporus received 98% bootstrap support. Providing further statistical evidence that Penicillium is not monophyletic, constraint trees forcing the penicillia to appear monophyletic were significantly less likely (using the maximum likelihood program DNAML) than trees allowing the penicillia to cluster into two groups. Aspergillus may be monophyletic, nested among species with Paecilomyces and Penicillium states. Monascus purpureus, although usually placed in a separate family, grouped with Eupenicillium and the Aspergillus species in the Trichocomaceae. Species in the Onygenales are basal to the Trichocomaceae. Coding regions varied little in length, were readily alignable and provided most of the evolutionary “signal” present in the data set, while the spacer regions varied in length from 309 to 447 base pairs and encompassed much unalignable data. We found evidence of higher levels of mutational saturation in the internal transcribed spacer regions than in the coding regions when we compared the pair-wise percent substitution, with and without correction for repeated substitutions at the same site, for the two data subsets.

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 · 10.1080/00275514.1995.12026523

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Berbee, M. L., Yoshimura, A., Sugiyama, J., & Taylor, J. W.
Venue
Mycologia
Published
1995-03
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
210-222
ISSN
  • 0027-5514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-2536
OpenAlex
W2007306988
Cited by
169
References
2
FWCI
3.15
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: Is Penicillium monophyletic? An evaluation of phylogeny in the family Trichocomaceae from 18S, 5.8S and ITS ribosomal DNA sequence data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00275514.1995.12026523
The paper
Berbee, M. L., Yoshimura, A., Sugiyama, J., & Taylor, J. W. (1995). Is Penicillium monophyletic? An evaluation of phylogeny in the family Trichocomaceae from 18S, 5.8S and ITS ribosomal DNA sequence data. Mycologia. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1995.12026523

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.