MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Their Day in the Sun: molecular phylogenetics and origin of photosymbiosis in the ‘other’ group of photosymbiotic marine bivalves (Cardiidae: Fraginae)

2009· article· en· W1920989439 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Kirkendale

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
FundersFlorida Museum of Natural History
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyCladeSubgenusZoologyPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic treeSubfamilyMolecular phylogeneticsLineage (genetic)Cytochrome bEvolutionary biologyTaxonomy (biology)GeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subfamily Fraginae (Cardiidae) is a morphologically diverse group of small-bodied marine clams inhabiting shallow seas worldwide. Like the exclusively photosymbiotic giant clams (Cardiidae: Tridacninae), some fragines are known to host zooxanthellae photosymbionts. However, surveys to widely determine photosymbiotic status and the lack of a comprehensive phylogeny have hindered attempts to track the evolution of photosymbiosis in the group. Worldwide sampling of all fragine genera and subgenera with phylogenetic reconstructions based on four gene regions [nuclear (28S) and mtDNA (16S, cytochrome oxidase I, cytochrome b)] does not support a monophyletic Fraginae. Sampled taxa form four restructured clades: (1) the 'Fragum' group, (2) the 'Trigoniocardia' and 'Ctenocardia' groups, (3) the 'Parvicardium' group and (4) the 'Papillicardium' group. Maximum likelihood analyses strongly support a clade of European cardiids uniting species from three subfamilies. Live examination of > 50% of species reveals that less than half of derived genera and subgenera host photosymbionts, supporting a single and relatively late origin of photosymbiosis in the Fraginae. The evolutionary implications for a small and little modified earliest diverging photosymbiotic lineage are discussed.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207