Bacterial genome chimaerism and the origin of mitochondria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have sought to determine the origin and evolution of mitochondria. Although the Alphaproteobacteria are thought to be the closest relatives of the mitochondrial progenitor, there is dispute as to what its particular sister group is. Some have argued that mitochondria originated from ancestors of the order Rickettsiales, or more specifically of the Rickettsiaceae family, while others believe that ancestors of the family Rhodospirillaceae are also equally likely the progenitors. To resolve some of these disputes, sequence similarity searches and phylogenetic analyses were performed against mitochondria-related proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The 86 common matches of 5 Alphaproteobacteria (Rickettsia prowazekii, Rhodospirillum rubrum, Rhodopseudomonas palustris, Rhodobacter sphaeroides, and Ochrobactrum anthropi) to yeast mitochondrial proteins were distributed fairly evenly among the 5 species when sorted by highest identity or score. Moreover, exploratory phylogenetic analyses revealed that among these common matches, 44.19% (38) had branched most closely with O. anthropi, while only 34.88% (30) corresponded with Rickettsia prowazekii. More detailed phylogenetic analyses with additional Alphaproteobacteria and including genes from the mitochondria of Reclinomonas americana found matches of mitochondrial genes to those of members of the Rickettsiaceae, Anaplasmataceae, and Rhodospirillaceae families. The results support the idea that notable bacterial genome chimaerism has occurred en route to the formation of mitochondria.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".