MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028702991 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0058

Evidence for Golgi bodies in proposed 'Golgi-lacking' lineages

2003· article· en· W2028702991 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel B. Dacks, Lesley A. Davis, Åsa M. Sjögren, Jan O. Andersson, Andrew J. Roger, W. Ford Doolittle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGolgi apparatusBiologyOrganellePhylogeneticsCell biologyGeneSecretory pathwayGeneticsEvolutionary biologyEndoplasmic reticulum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Golgi bodies are nearly ubiquitous in eukaryotic cells. The apparent lack of such structures in certain eukaryotic lineages might be taken to mean that these protists evolved prior to the acquisition of the Golgi, and it raises questions of how these organisms function in the absence of this crucial organelle. Here, we report gene sequences from five proposed 'Golgi-lacking' organisms (Giardia intestinalis, Spironucleus barkhanus, Entamoeba histolytica, Naegleria gruberi and Mastigamoeba balamuthi). BLAST and phylogenetic analyses show these genes to be homologous to those encoding components of the retromer, coatomer and adaptin complexes, all of which have Golgi-related functions in mammals and yeast. This is, to our knowledge, the first molecular evidence for Golgi bodies in two major eukaryotic lineages (the pelobionts and heteroloboseids). This substantiates the suggestion that there are no extant primitively 'Golgi-lacking' lineages, and that this apparatus was present in the last common eukaryotic ancestor, but has been altered beyond recognition several times.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207