The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Bacteriophage Specificity in Natural Microbial Communities
Open accessAbstract
Studying the coevolutionary dynamics between bacteria and the bacteriophage viruses that infect them is critical to understanding both microbial diversity and ecosystem functioning. Phages can play a key role in shaping bacterial population dynamics and can significantly alter both intra- and inter-specific competition among bacterial hosts. Predicting how phages might influence community stability and apparent competition, however, requires an understanding of how bacteria-phage interaction networks evolve as a function of host diversity and community dynamics. Here, we first review the progress that has been made in understanding phage specificity, including the use of experimental evolution, we then introduce a new dataset on natural bacteriophages collected from the phyllosphere of horse chestnut trees, and finally we highlight that bacterial sensitivity to phage is rarely a binary trait and that this variation should be taken into account and reported. We emphasize that there is currently insufficient evidence to make broad generalizations about phage host range in natural populations, the limits of phage adaptation to novel hosts, or the implications of phage specificity in shaping microbial communities. However, the combination of experimental and genomic approaches with the study of natural communities will allow new insight to the evolution and impact of phage specificity within complex bacterial communities.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Interactions Between the Microbiota and the Immune System
Hooper, L. V., Littman, D. R., & Macpherson, A. J. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1223490 · Cited by 4,173
Explaining Microbial Population Genomics through Phage Predation
Rodriguez-Valera, F., Martin-Cuadrado, A.-B., Rodriguez-Brito, B., Pašić, L., Thingstad, T. F., Rohwer, F., & Mira, A. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2235 · Cited by 663
Cited by
Koskella, B., & Brockhurst, M. A. (2014) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/1574-6976.12072 · Cited by 890
Self-citationSegal, L. N., Clemente, J. C., Tsay, J.-C. J., Koralov, S. B., Keller, B. C., Wu, B. G., Li, Y., Shen, N., Ghedin, E., Morris, A., et al. (2016) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.31 · Cited by 685
More Is Better: Selecting for Broad Host Range Bacteriophages
Ross, A., Ward, S., & Hyman, P. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01352 · Cited by 367
Finding alternatives to antibiotics
Allen, H. K., Trachsel, J., Looft, T., & Casey, T. A. (2014) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12468 · Cited by 269
Nanomedicine for phage therapy: Encapsulation strategies for enhanced antimicrobial efficacy
Dorta-Gorrín, A., Salgueiriño, V., & García-Hevia, L. (2026) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107660 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Koskella, B., & Meaden, S.
- Venue
- Viruses
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2013-03-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 806-823
- ISSN
- 1999-4915 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150468607
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.84
- 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: Understanding Bacteriophage Specificity in Natural Microbial Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/v5030806
- The paper
- Koskella, B., & Meaden, S. (2013). Understanding Bacteriophage Specificity in Natural Microbial Communities. Viruses. https://doi.org/10.3390/v5030806
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.