Foraminifera and Cercozoa Are Related in Actin Phylogeny: Two Orphans Find a Home?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the increased sampling of protein-coding genes from diverse eukaryotes has revealed that many aspects of each gene tree are at odds with other phylogenies. This has led to the belief that each gene tree has unique strengths and weaknesses, suggesting that an accurate picture of eukaryotic relationships will be achieved only through comparative phylogeny using several different genes. To this end, actin genes were characterized from two genera of chlorarachniophytes, Chlorarachnion and Lotharella, and three species of the cercomonad flagellate Cercomonas: Phylogenetic trees including these new actin genes confirm the recently proposed relationship between chlorarachniophytes and cercomonads (Cercozoa) and, more importantly, also show a close relationship between Cercozoa and Foraminifera. Both of these are major eukaryotic groups encompassing extremely diverse organisms, yet there is no strong evidence for the evolutionary position of either from morphological or molecular data. The union of Cercozoa and Foraminifera suggested by actin phylogeny represents a novel step in the long process of determining the broad relationships between all major eukaryotic groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".