ArticlePloS one2017
The relationships within the Chaitophorinae and Drepanosiphinae (Hemiptera, Aphididae) inferred from molecular-based phylogeny and comprehensive morphological data.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular phylogeny of the Acer-feeding aphid subfamily Drepanosiphinae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae) and the evolution of its endosymbiotic consortia.Zoological letters · 2025Article
- Unveiling hidden diversity: new records ofBiodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Phylogenetic reconstruction of Tuberolachnini and Lachninae (Insecta, Hemiptera): Morphological and molecular analyses revealed a new tribe.Frontiers in zoology · 2024Article
- Taxonomic Revision of the Nearctic GenusInsects · 2024Article
- Phylogeny of drepanosiphine aphids sensu lato (Hemiptera, Aphidoidea) inferred from molecular and morphological data.Current zoology · 2021Article
- Genetic data of museum specimens allow for inferring evolutionary history of the cosmopolitan genusPeerJ · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chaitophorinae is a bionomically diverse Holarctic subfamily of Aphididae. The current classification includes two tribes: the Chaitophorini associated with deciduous trees and shrubs, and Siphini that feed on monocotyledonous plants. We present the first phylogenetic hypothesis for the subfamily, based on molecular and morphological datasets. Molecular analyses were based on the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) and the nuclear gene elongation factor-1α (EF-1α). Phylogenetic inferences were obtained individually on each of genes and joined alignments using Bayesian inference (BI) and Maximum likelihood (ML). In phylogenetic trees reconstructed on the basis of nuclear and mitochondrial genes as well as a morphological dataset, the monophyly of Siphini and the genus Chaitophorus was supported. Periphyllus forms independent lineages from Chaitophorus and Siphini. Within this genus two clades comprising European and Asiatic species, respectively, were indicated. Concerning relationships within the subfamily, EF-1α and joined COI and EF-1α genes analysis strongly supports the hypothesis that Chaitophorini do not form a monophyletic clade. Periphyllus is a sister group to a clade containing Chaitophorus and Siphini. The Asiatic unit of Periphyllus also includes Trichaitophorus koyaensis. The analysis of morphological dataset under equally weighted parsimony also supports the view that Chaitophorini is an artificial taxon, as Lambersaphis pruinosae and Pseudopterocomma hughi, both traditionally included in the Chaitophorini, formed independent lineages. COI analyses support consistent groups within the subfamily, but relationships between groups are poorly resolved. These analyses were extended to include the species of closely related and phylogenetically unstudied subfamily Drepanosiphinae, which produced congruent results. Genera Drepanosiphum and Depanaphis are monophyletic and sister. The position of Yamatocallis tokyoensis differs in the molecular and morphological analyses, i.e. it is either an independent lineage (EF-1α, COI, joined COI and EF-1α genes) or is nested inside this unit (morphology). Our data also support separation of Chaitophorinae from Drepanosiphinae.
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.