MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486346849 · doi:10.1038/35001059

Ancestral chloroplast genome in Mesostigma viride reveals an early branch of green plant evolution

2000· article· en· W1486346849 on OpenAlexafffund
Claude Lemieux, Christian Otis, Monique Turmel

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFourth Framework ProgrammeNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBiologyChlorophytaLineage (genetic)Green algaeChloroplastChloroplast DNAPhylumGenomeEvolutionary biologyBotanyFlagellateAlgaeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence comparisons suggest that all living green plants belong to one of two major phyla: Streptophyta (land plants and their closest green algal relatives, the charophytes); and Chlorophyta (the rest of green algae). Because no green algae are known that pre-date the Streptophyta/Chlorophyta split, and also because the earliest diverging green algae show considerable morphological variation, the nature of the unicellular flagellate ancestor of the two green plant phyla is unknown. Here we report that the flagellate Mesostigma viride belongs to the earliest diverging green plant lineage discovered to date. We have sequenced the entire chloroplast DNA (118,360 base pairs) of this green alga and have conducted phylogenetic analyses of sequences derived from this genome. Mesostigma represents a lineage that emerged before the divergence of the Streptophyta and Chlorophyta, a position that is supported by several features of its chloroplast DNA. The structure and gene organization of this genome indicate that chloroplast DNA architecture has been extremely well conserved in the line leading to land plants.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations288
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207