A model for the morphogenesis of strip reduction patterns in phototrophic euglenids: evidence for heterochrony in pellicle evolution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it