Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trade-Offs between Competition and Defense Specialists among Unicellular Planktonic Organisms: the “Killing the Winner” Hypothesis Revisited

Open access
Winter, Christian, Bouvier, Thierry, Weinbauer, Markus G., Thingstad, T. Frede·2010·Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews

Abstract

SUMMARY: A trade-off between strategies maximizing growth and minimizing losses appears to be a fundamental property of evolving biological entities existing in environments with limited resources. In the special case of unicellular planktonic organisms, the theoretical framework describing the trade-offs between competition and defense specialists is known as the “killing the winner” hypothesis (KtW). KtW describes how the availability of resources and the actions of predators (e.g., heterotrophic flagellates) and parasites (e.g., viruses) determine the composition and biogeochemical impact of such organisms. We extend KtW conceptually by introducing size- or shape-selective grazing of protozoans on prokaryotes into an idealized food web composed of prokaryotes, lytic viruses infecting prokaryotes, and protozoans. This results in a hierarchy analogous to a Russian doll, where KtW principles are at work on a lower level due to selective viral infection and on an upper level due to size- or shape-selective grazing by protozoans. Additionally, we critically discuss predictions and limitations of KtW in light of the recent literature, with particular focus on typically neglected aspects of KtW. Many aspects of KtW have been corroborated by in situ and experimental studies of isolates and natural communities. However, a thorough test of KtW is still hampered by current methodological limitations. In particular, the quantification of nutrient uptake rates of the competing prokaryotic populations and virus population-specific adsorption and decay rates appears to be the most daunting challenge for the years to come.

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/mmbr.00034-09

Cites

91 of 91 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 91 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Winter, C., Bouvier, T., Weinbauer, M. G., & Thingstad, T. F.
Venue
Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
Published
2010-03
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
42-57
ISSN
  • 1092-2172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5557
OpenAlex
W2151888974
Cited by
435
References
91
FWCI
2.76
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: Trade-Offs between Competition and Defense Specialists among Unicellular Planktonic Organisms: the “Killing the Winner” Hypothesis Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/mmbr.00034-09
The paper
Winter, C., Bouvier, T., Weinbauer, M. G., & Thingstad, T. F. (2010). Trade-Offs between Competition and Defense Specialists among Unicellular Planktonic Organisms: the “Killing the Winner” Hypothesis Revisited. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00034-09

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.