The tangled past of eukaryotic enzymes involved in anaerobic metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little doubt that genes can spread across unrelated prokaryotes, eukaryotes and even between these domains. It is expected that organisms inhabiting a common niche may exchange their genes even more often due to their physical proximity and similar demands. One such niche is anaerobic or microaerophilic environments in some sediments and intestines of animals. Indeed, enzymes advantageous for metabolism in these environments often exhibit an evolutionary history incoherent with the history of their hosts indicating potential transfers. The evolutionary paths of some very basic enzymes for energy metabolism of anaerobic eukaryotes (pyruvate formate lyase, pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase, [FeFe]hydrogenase and arginine deiminase) seems to be particularly intriguing and although their histories are not identical they share several unexpected features in common. Every enzyme mentioned above is present in groups of eukaryotes that are unrelated to each other. Although the enzyme phylogenies are not always robustly supported, they always suggest that the eukaryotic homologues form one or two clades, in which the relationships are not congruent with the eukaryotic phylogeny. Finally, these eukaryotic enzymes are never specifically related to homologues from α-proteobacteria, ancestors of mitochondria. The most plausible explanation for evolution of this pattern expects one or two interdomain transfers to one or two eukaryotes from prokaryotes, who were not the mitochondrial endosymbiont. Once the genes were introduced into the eukaryotic domain they have spread to other eukaryotic groups exclusively via eukaryote-to-eukaryote transfers. Currently, eukaryote-to-eukaryote gene transfers have been regarded as less common than prokaryote-to-eukaryote transfers. The fact that eukaryotes accepted genes for these enzymes solely from other eukaryotes and not prokaryotes present in the same environment is surprising.
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".