43 genes support the lungfish-coelacanth grouping related to the closest living relative of tetrapods with the Bayesian method under the coalescence model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the discovery of the "living fossil" in 1938, the coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) has generally been considered to be the closest living relative of the land vertebrates, and this is still the prevailing opinion in most general biology textbooks. However, the origin of tetrapods has not been resolved for decades. Three principal hypotheses (lungfish-tetrapod, coelacanth-tetrapod, or lungfish-coelacanth sister group) have been proposed. FINDINGS: We used the Bayesian method under the coalescence model with the latest published program (Bayesian Estimation of Species Trees, or BEST) to perform a phylogenetic analysis for seven relevant taxa and 43 nuclear protein-coding genes with the jackknife method for taxon sub-sampling. The lungfish-coelacanth sister group was consistently reconstructed with the Bayesian method under the coalescence model in 17 out of 21 taxon sets with a Bayesian posterior probability as high as 99%. Lungfish-tetrapod was only inferred from BCLS and BACLS. Neither coelacanth-tetrapod nor lungfish-coelacanth-tetrapod was recovered out of all 21 taxon sets. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide strong evidence in favor of accepting the hypothesis that lungfishes and coelacanths form a monophyletic sister-group that is the closest living relative of tetrapods. This clade was supported by high Bayesian posterior probabilities of the branch (a lungfish-coelacanth clade) and high taxon jackknife supports.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".