Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity

Open access
Parfrey, Laura Wegener, Barbero, Erika, Lasser, Elyse, Dunthorn, Micah, Bhattacharya, Debashish, Patterson, David J., Katz, Laura A.·2006·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

Perspectives on the classification of eukaryotic diversity have changed rapidly in recent years, as the four eukaryotic groups within the five-kingdom classification--plants, animals, fungi, and protists--have been transformed through numerous permutations into the current system of six "supergroups." The intent of the supergroup classification system is to unite microbial and macroscopic eukaryotes based on phylogenetic inference. This supergroup approach is increasing in popularity in the literature and is appearing in introductory biology textbooks. We evaluate the stability and support for the current six-supergroup classification of eukaryotes based on molecular genealogies. We assess three aspects of each supergroup: (1) the stability of its taxonomy, (2) the support for monophyly (single evolutionary origin) in molecular analyses targeting a supergroup, and (3) the support for monophyly when a supergroup is included as an out-group in phylogenetic studies targeting other taxa. Our analysis demonstrates that supergroup taxonomies are unstable and that support for groups varies tremendously, indicating that the current classification scheme of eukaryotes is likely premature. We highlight several trends contributing to the instability and discuss the requirements for establishing robust clades within the eukaryotic tree of life.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Parfrey, L. W., Barbero, E., Lasser, E., Dunthorn, M., Bhattacharya, D., Patterson, D. J., & Katz, L. A.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2006
Volume
2
Issue
12
Pages
e220
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2019061097
Cited by
164
References
7
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220
The paper
Parfrey, L. W., Barbero, E., Lasser, E., Dunthorn, M., Bhattacharya, D., Patterson, D. J., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220

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.