Cyst‐motile stage relationship, morphology, ultrastructure, and molecular phylogeny of the gymnodinioid dinoflagellate <i>Barrufeta resplendens</i> comb. nov., formerly known as <i>Gyrodinium resplendens</i>, isolated from the Gulf of Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we redescribed Gyrodinium resplendens through incubation of process bearing cysts extracted from sediment collected in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The morphology and ultrastructure of the motile stage and cyst stage were examined using light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy and this revealed that the species should be transferred to the genus Barrufeta. This genus differs from other gymnodinioid genera in possessing a Smurf-cap apical structure complex (ASC) and currently encompasses only one species, Barrufeta bravensis. B. resplendens shows a Smurf-cap ASC that consists of three rows of elongated vesicles with small knobs in the middle one. B. resplendens is very similar to B. bravensis in cell morphology, but can be separated using the ultrastructure such as the shape and location of nucleus and pyrenoids, which highlights the importance of ultrastructure at inter-specific level in the genus Barrufeta. The unique cysts of B. resplendens are brown and process bearing, and have a tremic archeopyle with a zigzag margin on the dorsal side of the epicyst, and not polar as in cysts of Polykrikos. The cysts do not survive the palynological treatment used here and probably have a wide distribution. Maximum-likelihood and Bayesian inference were carried out based on partial large subunit ribosomal DNA (LSU rDNA) sequences. Molecular phylogeny supports that the genus Barrufeta is monophyletic, and that the genus Gymnodinium is polyphyletic. Our results suggest that details of the ASC together with ultrastructure are potential features to subdivide the genus Gymnodinium.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".