ArticlePeerJ2016
Effects of 16S rDNA sampling on estimates of the number of endosymbiont lineages in sucking lice.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- An obligate symbiont ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Symbioses shape feeding niches and diversification across insects.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Supergroup F Wolbachia with extremely reduced genome: transition to obligate insect symbionts.Microbiome · 2023Article
- Ecological Contacts and Host Specificity Promote Replacement of Nutritional Endosymbionts in Ticks.Microbial ecology · 2022Article
- Endosymbiotic bacteria of the boar louseFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Patterns of Microbiome Variation Among Infrapopulations of Permanent Bloodsucking Parasites.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Legionella Becoming a Mutualist: Adaptive Processes Shaping the Genome of Symbiont in the Louse Polyplax serrata.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Primates, Lice and Bacteria: Speciation and Genome Evolution in the Symbionts of Hominid Lice.Molecular biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phylogenetic trees can reveal the origins of endosymbiotic lineages of bacteria and detect patterns of co-evolution with their hosts. Although taxon sampling can greatly affect phylogenetic and co-evolutionary inference, most hypotheses of endosymbiont relationships are based on few available bacterial sequences. Here we examined how different sampling strategies of Gammaproteobacteria sequences affect estimates of the number of endosymbiont lineages in parasitic sucking lice (Insecta: Phthirapatera: Anoplura). We estimated the number of louse endosymbiont lineages using both newly obtained and previously sequenced 16S rDNA bacterial sequences and more than 42,000 16S rDNA sequences from other Gammaproteobacteria. We also performed parametric and nonparametric bootstrapping experiments to examine the effects of phylogenetic error and uncertainty on these estimates. Sampling of 16S rDNA sequences affects the estimates of endosymbiont diversity in sucking lice until we reach a threshold of genetic diversity, the size of which depends on the sampling strategy. Sampling by maximizing the diversity of 16S rDNA sequences is more efficient than randomly sampling available 16S rDNA sequences. Although simulation results validate estimates of multiple endosymbiont lineages in sucking lice, the bootstrap results suggest that the precise number of endosymbiont origins is still uncertain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.