MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019544380 · doi:10.3354/dao040079

Conservation of sequence in the internal transcribed spacers and 5.8S ribosomal RNA among geographically separated isolates of parasitic scuticociliates (Ciliophora, Orchitophryidae)

2000· article· en· W2019544380 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
C. Louise Goggin, NE Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of Aquatic Organisms · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtlantic Veterinary CollegeCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationDavid and Elaine Potter Foundation
KeywordsBiologyAsteriasInternal transcribed spacerRibosomal RNANucleic acid sequenceSpacer DNARibosomal DNAGeneticsGeneZoologyPhylogeneticsEcologyStarfish

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleotide sequence from the internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 and ITS2) and the 5.8S gene from the ribosomal RNA gene cluster of isolates of the scuticociliate Orchitophrya stellarum from 4 asteroid hosts were compared. Surprisingly, these data (495 bp) were identical for O. stellarum isolated from the testes of Asterias amurensis from Japan; Pisaster ochraceus from British Columbia, Canada; Asterias rubens from The Netherlands; and Asterias vulgaris from Prince Edward Island, Canada. These sequence data were compared to those from 3 scuticociliates which parasitise crustaceans: Mesanophrys pugettensis, M. chesapeakensis and Anophryoides haemophila. No difference was found in this region between the nucleotide sequence of M. pugettensis and M. chesapeakensis. The sequence of Mesanophrys spp. differed by 9.2% in the ITS1 and 4.7% in the ITS2 from that of O. stellarum. The sequence from the ITS1 (135 bp) and ITS2 (233 bp) of A. haemophila differed by 42.6 and 20.5% respectively from those of O. stellarum. Therefore, nucleotide sequence of the ITS regions in these scuticociliates is highly conserved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of Aquatic OrganismsSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207