The central body of the cyanelles of <i>Cyanophora paradoxa</i>: a eukaryotic carboxysome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cyanelles of the glaucocystophyte Cyanophora paradoxa combine two prokaryotic features not found in other phototrophic eukaryotes: a peptidoglycan wall and a putative carboxysome. Both of them would be indispensable when a inorganic carbon concentrating mechanism involving high accumulation of bicarbonate in the cyanelle stroma is assumed. Two approaches were used. (i) An expressed sequence tag library was generated allowing access to interesting genes and microarray technology. Hybridization of the microarrays to RNA from cells grown at high and low CO2 yielded 97 genes that were upregulated under CO2 stress whereas 87 genes were found to be downregulated. (ii) Cyanelle central bodies were isolated and protein components other than Rubisco were investigated by mass spectrometry. So far, mass spectrometric analysis of putative carboxysomal proteins yielded only sequences with no match in the databases. Rubisco activase could be shown via in vitro import and Western blotting to be copackaged with Rubisco in isolated purified central bodies. While our data support the presence of an inorganic carbon concentrating mechanism in cyanelles, they do not allow us to distinguish the microcompartment as a carboxysome or pyrenoid.Key words: Cyanophora paradoxa, cyanelles, carboxysome, Rubisco activase, carbon-concentrating mechanism, microarrays.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".