Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

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

COSPECIATION BETWEEN BACTERIAL ENDOSYMBIONTS (BUCHNERA) AND A RECENT RADIATION OF APHIDS (UROLEUCON) AND PITFALLS OF TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC CONGRUENCE

Clark, Marta A., Moran, Nancy A., Baumann, Paul, Wernegreen, Jennifer J.·2000·Evolution

Abstract

Previous studies of phylogenetic congruence between aphids and their symbiotic bacteria (Buchnera) supported long-term vertical transmission of symbionts. However, those studies were based on distantly related aphids and would not have revealed horizontal transfer of symbionts among closely related hosts. Aphid species of the genus Uroleucon are closely related phylogenetically and overlap in geographic ranges, habitats, and parasitoids. To examine support for congruence of phylogenies of Buchnera and Uroleucon, sequences from four mitochondrial, one nuclear, and one endosymbiont gene (trpB) were obtained. Congruence of phylogenies based on pooled aphid genes with phylogenies based on trpB was highly significant: Most nodes resolved by trpB corresponded to nodes resolved by the pooled aphid genes. Furthermore, no nodes were both inconsistent between the trees and strongly supported in both trees. Two kinds of analyses testing the null hypothesis of perfect congruence between pairwise combinations of datasets and tree topologies were performed: the Kishino-Hasegawa test and the likelihood-ratio test. Both tests indicated significant disagreement among most pairwise combinations of mitochondrial, nuclear, and symbiont datasets. Because rampant recombination among mitochondrial genomes of different aphid species is unlikely, inaccurate assumptions in the evolutionary models underlying these tests appear to be causing the hypothesis of a shared history to be incorrectly rejected. Moreover, trpB was more consistent with the aphid genes as a set than any single aphid gene was with the others, suggesting that the symbionts show the same phylogeny as the aphids. Overall, analyses support the interpretation that symbionts and aphids have undergone strict cospeciation, with no horizontal transmission of symbionts even among closely related, ecologically similar aphid hosts.

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 · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00054.x

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 255

Metadata

Authors
Clark, M. A., Moran, N. A., Baumann, P., & Wernegreen, J. J.
Venue
Evolution
Published
2000-04
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
517-525
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
OpenAlex
W2179331560
Cited by
255
References
1
FWCI
19.21
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: COSPECIATION BETWEEN BACTERIAL ENDOSYMBIONTS (BUCHNERA) AND A RECENT RADIATION OF APHIDS (UROLEUCON) AND PITFALLS OF TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC CONGRUENCE. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00054.x
The paper
Clark, M. A., Moran, N. A., Baumann, P., & Wernegreen, J. J. (2000). COSPECIATION BETWEEN BACTERIAL ENDOSYMBIONTS (BUCHNERA) AND A RECENT RADIATION OF APHIDS (UROLEUCON) AND PITFALLS OF TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC CONGRUENCE. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00054.x

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.