Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endocytic organelles in three eukaryotic kingdoms evolved in parallel, according to Joel Dacks, Mark Field (University of Cambridge, UK), and Pak Poon (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada). Unlike mitochondria and chloroplasts, the membrane trafficking system did not arise through endosymbiosis; it evolved from within. When fungi, plants, and animals split off from their last common ancestor, some parts of the system were “caught midstream in the process of becoming discrete organelles,” says Dacks. To track the development of the system, the authors performed phylogenetic analyses of three components: Rab5 and β-adaptins, which help sort cargo into vesicles, and the endocytic syntaxins, which assist vesicle fusion. The team found that in the common ancestor, each was represented by a single molecule that performed multiple functions. After divergence, the components evolved in parallel through gene duplication and specialization. For instance, syntaxin E homologues in each kingdom now include one that drives fusion at the early endosome and another that helps fuse late endosomes to the lysosome. These two sets of syntaxins arose after the eukaryotic split and independently adopted similar functions within each group. “The distinction among the endosomes was less clear at the start and was firmed up afterward,” says Field. The need for increased cargo specificity and sorting efficiency in each group seems to have driven the parallel evolution. Reference: Dacks, J., et al. 2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 10.1073/pnas.0707318105 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.055 |
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".