Evolution of microtubule organizing centers across the tree of eukaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The architecture of eukaryotic cells is underpinned by complex arrrays of microtubules that stem from an organizing center, referred to as the MTOC. With few exceptions, MTOCs consist of two basal bodies that anchor flagellar axonemes and different configurations of microtubular roots. Variations in the structure of this cytoskeletal system, also referred to as the 'flagellar apparatus', reflect phylogenetic relationships and provide compelling evidence for inferring the overall tree of eukaryotes. However, reconstructions and subsequent comparisons of the flagellar apparatus are challenging, because these studies require sophisticated microscopy, spatial reasoning and detailed terminology. In an attempt to understand the unifying features of MTOCs and broad patterns of cytoskeletal homology across the tree of eukaryotes, we present a comprehensive overview of the eukaryotic flagellar apparatus within a modern molecular phylogenetic context. Specifically, we used the known cytoskeletal diversity within major groups of eukaryotes to infer the unifying features (ancestral states) for the flagellar apparatus in the Plantae, Opisthokonta, Amoebozoa, Stramenopiles, Alveolata, Rhizaria, Excavata, Cryptophyta, Haptophyta, Apusozoa, Breviata and Collodictyonidae. We then mapped these data onto the tree of eukaryotes in order to trace broad patterns of trait changes during the evolutionary history of the flagellar apparatus. This synthesis suggests that: (i) the most recent ancestor of all eukaryotes already had a complex flagellar apparatus, (ii) homologous traits associated with the flagellar apparatus have a punctate distribution across the tree of eukaryotes, and (iii) streamlining (trait losses) of the ancestral flagellar apparatus occurred several times independently in eukaryotes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".