Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intra- and Interspecific Comparisons of Bacterial Diversity and Community Structure Support Coevolution of Gut Microbiota and Termite Host

Open access
Hongoh, Yuichi, Deevong, Pinsurang, Inoue, Tetsushi, Moriya, Shigeharu, Trakulnaleamsai, Savitr, Ohkuma, Moriya, Vongkaluang, Charunee, Noparatnaraporn, Napavarn, Kudo, Toshiaki·2005·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

We investigated the bacterial gut microbiota from 32 colonies of wood-feeding termites, comprising four Microcerotermes species (Termitidae) and four Reticulitermes species (Rhinotermitidae), using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis and clonal analysis of 16S rRNA. The obtained molecular community profiles were compared statistically between individuals, colonies, locations, and species of termites. Both analyses revealed that the bacterial community structure was remarkably similar within each termite genus, with small but significant differences between sampling sites and/or termite species. In contrast, considerable differences were found between the two termite genera. Only one bacterial phylotype (defined with 97% sequence identity) was shared between the two termite genera, while 18% and 50% of the phylotypes were shared between two congeneric species in the genera Microcerotermes and Reticulitermes , respectively. Nevertheless, a phylogenetic analysis of 228 phylotypes from Microcerotermes spp. and 367 phylotypes from Reticulitermes spp. with other termite gut clones available in public databases demonstrated the monophyly of many phylotypes from distantly related termites. The monophyletic “termite clusters” comprised of phylotypes from more than one termite species were distributed among 15 bacterial phyla, including the novel candidate phyla TG2 and TG3. These termite clusters accounted for 95% of the 960 clones analyzed in this study. Moreover, the clusters in 12 phyla comprised phylotypes from more than one termite (sub)family, accounting for 75% of the analyzed clones. Our results suggest that the majority of gut bacteria are not allochthonous but are specific symbionts that have coevolved with termites and that their community structure is basically consistent within a genus of termites.

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 · 10.1128/aem.71.11.6590-6599.2005

Cites

35 of 35 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 35 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Hongoh, Y., Deevong, P., Inoue, T., Moriya, S., Trakulnaleamsai, S., Ohkuma, M., Vongkaluang, C., Noparatnaraporn, N., & Kudo, T.
Venue
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Published
2005-11
Volume
71
Issue
11
Pages
6590-6599
ISSN
  • 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5336
OpenAlex
W2138969412
Cited by
309
References
35
FWCI
7.39
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: Intra- and Interspecific Comparisons of Bacterial Diversity and Community Structure Support Coevolution of Gut Microbiota and Termite Host. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.71.11.6590-6599.2005
The paper
Hongoh, Y., Deevong, P., Inoue, T., Moriya, S., Trakulnaleamsai, S., Ohkuma, M., Vongkaluang, C., Noparatnaraporn, N., & Kudo, T. (2005). Intra- and Interspecific Comparisons of Bacterial Diversity and Community Structure Support Coevolution of Gut Microbiota and Termite Host. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.71.11.6590-6599.2005

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.