Cryptic Diversity of Free‐Living Parabasalids, <i>Pseudotrichomonas keilini</i> and <i>Lacusteria cypriaca</i> n. g., n. sp., as Inferred from Small Subunit rDNA Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrastructural and molecular phylogenetic evidence indicate that the Parabasalia consists of seven main subgroups: the Trichomonadida, Honigbergiellida, Hypotrichomonadida, Tritrichomonadida, Cristamonadida, Spirotrichonymphida, and Trichonymphida. Only five species of free-living parabasalids are known: Monotrichomonas carabina, Ditrichomonas honigbergii, Honigbergiella sp., Tetratrichomonas undula, and Pseudotrichomonas keilini. Phylogenetic analyses show that free-living species do not form a clade and instead branch in several different positions within the context of their parasitic relatives. Because the diversity of free-living parabasalids is poorly understood, the systematics of these lineages is in a significant state of disarray. In order to better understand the phylogenetic distribution of free-living parabasalids, we sequenced the small subunit rDNA from three different strains reminiscent of P. keilini; the strains were isolated from different geographical locations: (1) mangrove sediments in Japan and (2) sediments in Cyprus. These data demonstrated that the free-living parabasalids P. keilini and Lacusteria cypriaca n. g., n. sp., form a paraphyletic assemblage near the origin of a clade consisting mostly of parasitic trichomonadids (e.g. Trichomonas vaginalis). This paraphyletic distribution of similar morphotypes indicates that free-living trichomonadids represent a compelling example of morphostasis that provides insight into the suite of features present in the most recent free-living ancestor of their parasitic relatives.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".