Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Two contrasting and very different proposals have been put forward to account for the evolutionary relationships among prokaryotes. The currently widely accepted three domain proposal by Woese et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1990) 87: 4576-4579) calls for the division of prokaryotes into two primary groups or domains, termed archaebacteria (Archaea) and eubacteria (Bacteria), both of which are suggested to have originated independently from a universal ancestor. However, this proposal, which is based primarily on genes involved in the information transfer processes, is inconsistent with the ultrastructural characteristics of prokaryotes as well as with many gene phylogenies and provides no explanation as to how the structural and molecular differences seen between these groups arose and how other prokaryotic taxa are related or evolved from the common ancestor. It also postulates that the last common ancestor of all organisms was a hypothetical entity lacking a cell membrane, which is contrary to the basic requirement of a cell membrane to define and separate all forms of life from the surrounding environment. A second alternate proposal for the evolutionary relationships among prokaryotes has emerged from extensive analyses of numerous conserved inserts and deletions found in various proteins (Gupta, R. S., Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. (1998)62: 1435-1491; FEMS Microbiol. Rev. (2000) 24: in press. This proposal points to a specific relationship between archaebacteria and gram-positive bacteria, both of which are prokaryotes bounded by a single cell membrane (monoderm prokaryotes). Gram-negative bacteria, which are bounded by two different membranes (diderm prokaryotes), are indicated to comprise a structurally and phylogenetically distinct taxa originating from gram-positive bacteria. This proposal postulates that the earliest prokaryote was a gram-positive bacteria from which both archaebacteria and diderm prokaryotes evolved by normal evolutionary mechanisms in response to the strong selection pressure exerted by antibiotics produced by certain groups of gram-positive bacteria. This proposal accounts for both the molecular as well structural differences seen among the main groups of prokaryotes by known evolutionary mechanisms without invoking any hypothetical process or entity and thus is a closer representation of the natural relationships among prokaryotes than the proposal for two distinct domains. Based on this new proposal, it is now possible to logically deduce the branching order of different prokaryotic taxa from the common ancestor, which is as follows: Gram-positive bacteria (Low G + C) (<=> Archaebacteria) => Gram-positive bacteria (High G + C) (<=> Archaebacteria)=> Deinococcus-Thermus => Green nonsulfur bacteria => Cyanobacteria => Spirochetes => Chlamydia- Cytophaga-Green sulfur bacteria => Proteobacteria-1 (epsilon, delta)=> Proteobacteria-2 (alpha) => Proteobacteria-3 (beta) => Proteobacteria-4 (gamma). A surprising but very important aspect of the relationship deduced here is that the main eubacterial phyla are related to each other linearly rather than in a tree-like manner, suggesting that the major evolutionary changes within prokaryotes (bacteria) have occurred in a directional manner.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».