A model for the morphogenesis of strip reduction patterns in phototrophic euglenids: evidence for heterochrony in pellicle evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a general developmental model that explains the evolutionary origin, diversification, and inheritance of pellicle strip patterns in phototrophic euglenids. Dividing cells of Euglena gracilis, E. viridis, and Phacus similis were observed with scanning electron microscopy in order to study the morphogenesis of posterior whorls of strip reduction. We found evidence that constant whorl numbers are maintained through cell division because of organized strip growth before and during cytokinesis. Alternating nascent strips form a new whorl of strip reduction at each of the anterior and posterior ends of daughter cells. Strips that terminated to form posterior whorls in the mother cell change in length during the development of daughter cells. In the mother cells of E. gracilis, the strips forming whorls I and II grow to become whorls II and III, respectively, in the daughter cells; the strips forming whorl III in the mother cell lengthen and meet with other strips already present at the posterior tip of daughter cells. This process of whorl morphogenesis during asexual reproduction is consistent with known variation in pellicle strip patterns and suggests that heterochrony played a major role in the ultrastructural evolution of phototrophic euglenids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".