MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982882180 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0501918102

Lateral transfer of mating system in <i>Stemphylium</i>

2005· article· en· W1982882180 on OpenAlexaff
Patrik Inderbitzin, Jennifer S. Harkness, B. Gillian Turgeon, Mary L. Berbee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySelfingCladePhylogenetic treeMonophylyBotanyPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fungal genus Stemphylium (Ascomycota) contains selfing species that evolved from outcrossing ancestors. To find out how selfing originated, we analyzed the Stemphylium MAT loci that regulate sexual reproduction in ascomycetes and compared MAT structures and phylogeny with a multigene Stemphylium species phylogeny. We found that some Stemphylium species' MAT loci contained a single gene, either MAT1-1 or MAT1-2, whereas others contained a unique fusion of the MAT1-1 and MAT1-2 regions. In all fused MAT regions, MAT1-1 was inverted and joined to a forward-oriented MAT1-2 region. As in the closely related Cochliobolus, Stemphylium species with fused MAT regions were able to self. Structural and phylogenetic analyses of the MAT loci showed that the selfing-conferring fused MAT regions were monophyletic with strong support. However, in an organismal phylogeny of Stemphylium species based on 106 isolates and four loci unrelated to mating, selfing arose in two clades, each time with strong support. Isolates with identical fused MAT regions were present in both clades. We showed that a one-time origin of the fused MAT loci, followed by a horizontal transfer across lineages, was compatible with the data. Another group of selfers in Stemphylium only had forward-oriented MAT1-1 at their MAT loci, constituting an additional and third origin of selfing in Stemphylium.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.244
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations117
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207