Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogeny of Gammaproteobacteria

Open access
Williams, Kelly P., Gillespie, Joseph J., Sobral, Bruno W. S., Nordberg, Eric K., Snyder, Eric E., Shallom, Joshua M., Dickerman, Allan W.·2010·Journal of Bacteriology

Abstract

The phylogeny of the large bacterial class Gammaproteobacteria has been difficult to resolve. Here we apply a telescoping multiprotein approach to the problem for 104 diverse gammaproteobacterial genomes, based on a set of 356 protein families for the whole class and even larger sets for each of four cohesive subregions of the tree. Although the deepest divergences were resistant to full resolution, some surprising patterns were strongly supported. A representative of the Acidithiobacillales routinely appeared among the outgroup members, suggesting that in conflict with rRNA-based phylogenies this order does not belong to Gammaproteobacteria ; instead, it (and, independently, “ Mariprofundus ”) diverged after the establishment of the Alphaproteobacteria yet before the betaproteobacteria/gammaproteobacteria split. None of the orders Alteromonadales , Pseudomonadales , or Oceanospirillales were monophyletic; we obtained strong support for clades that contain some but exclude other members of all three orders. Extreme amino acid bias in the highly A+T-rich genome of Ca ndidatus Carsonella prevented its reliable placement within Gammaproteobacteria , and high bias caused artifacts that limited the resolution of the relationships of other insect endosymbionts, which appear to have had multiple origins, although the unbiased genome of the endosymbiont Sodalis acted as an attractor for them. Instability was observed for the root of the Enterobacteriales , with nearly equal subsets of the protein families favoring one or the other of two alternative root positions; the nematode symbiont Photorhabdus was identified as a disruptor whose omission helped stabilize the Enterobacteriales root.

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/jb.01480-09

Cites

39 of 39 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 39 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Williams, K. P., Gillespie, J. J., Sobral, B. W. S., Nordberg, E. K., Snyder, E. E., Shallom, J. M., & Dickerman, A. W.
Venue
Journal of Bacteriology
Published
2010-05
Volume
192
Issue
9
Pages
2305-2314
ISSN
  • 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5530
OpenAlex
W2141778814
Cited by
396
References
39
FWCI
9.10
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: Phylogeny of Gammaproteobacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.01480-09
The paper
Williams, K. P., Gillespie, J. J., Sobral, B. W. S., Nordberg, E. K., Snyder, E. E., Shallom, J. M., & Dickerman, A. W. (2010). Phylogeny of Gammaproteobacteria. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.01480-09

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.