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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".