Chromalveolates and the Evolution of Plastids by Secondary Endosymbiosis<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The establishment of a new plastid organelle by secondary endosymbiosis represents a series of events of massive complexity, and yet we know it has taken place multiple times because both green and red algae have been taken up by other eukaryotic lineages. Exactly how many times these events have succeeded, however, has been a matter of debate that significantly impacts how we view plastid evolution, protein targeting, and eukaryotic relationships. On the green side it is now largely accepted that two independent events led to plastids of euglenids and chlorarachniophytes. How many times red algae have been taken up is less clear, because there are many more lineages with red alga-derived plastids (cryptomonads, haptophytes, heterokonts, dinoflagellates and apicomplexa) and the relationships between these lineages are less clear. Ten years ago, Cavalier-Smith proposed that these plastids were all derived from a single endosymbiosis, an idea that was dubbed the chromalveolate hypothesis. No one observation has yet supported the chromalveolate hypothesis as a whole, but molecular data from plastid-encoded and plastid-targeted proteins have provided strong support for several components of the overall hypothesis, and evidence for cryptic plastids and new photosynthetic lineages (e.g. Chromera) have transformed our view of plastid distribution within the group. Collectively, these data are most easily reconciled with a single origin of the chromalveolate plastids, although the phylogeny of chromalveolate host lineages (and potentially Rhizaria) remain to be reconciled with this plastid data.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".