MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087884345 · doi:10.1139/b01-086

<i>Entophlyctis apiculata</i>, a chytrid parasite of <i>Chlamydomonas</i> sp. (Chlorophyceae)

2001· article· en· W2087884345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Woongghi Shin, Sung Min Boo, Joyce E. Longcore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoosporeSporangiumBiologyBotanyUltrastructureChlamydomonasFungusGenusChlorophyceaeChytridiomycotaParasite hostingSporeAlgaeChlorophytaAscomycota

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A chytridialean fungus identified as Entophlyctis apiculata (Braun) Fischer parasitized cells of Chlamydomonas sp. that bloomed in an agricultural pond in Hongsung, Korea, during 1999 and 2000. This is one of the species for which Fischer described the genus Entophlyctis in 1892. Since the segregation of the Spizellomycetales from the Chytridiales confusion has existed as to whether Entophlyctis is a spizellomycetalean or a chytridialean genus. We examined the morphology and development of the Korean E. apiculata with light and transmission electron microscopy. The parasite develops exogenously and has a monocentric, inoperculate zoosporangium. Zoospores within the sporangium contain a single lipid globule associated with a microbody, a rumposome, and a nonflagellated centriole that is parallel and attached by fibers to the kinetosome. These features indicate that E. apiculata is a member of the Chytridiales; however, zoospores were still within the zoosporangium and did not provide sufficient characters to determine the zoospore subtype, which is important for identifying clades within this order.Key words: Chytridiales, pond, Spizellomycetales, ultrastructure, zoospore.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207