Unusual compact rDNA gene arrangements within some members of the Ascomycota: evidence for molecular co-evolution between ITS1 and ITS2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The internal transcribed spacers of the ribosomal DNA tandem repeat were examined in members of the ascomycetous genus Sphaeronaemella. Species of Sphaeronaemella and its mitotic counterpart Gabarnaudia, have a compact rDNA gene arrangement due to unusually short internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. Examination of these regions from phylogenetically related taxa, Cornuvesica, Gondwanamyces, and Ceratocystis, showed that their ITS1 and ITS2 regions could be folded into central hairpin-like structures with the size reduction in species of Sphaeronaemella being due to length reduction of the main-hairpin and the loss of smaller hairpin-like structures that emanate from the main hairpin. A databank compilation, combined with newly obtained sequences, provided an ITS data set that includes sequences of 600 species belonging to the Ascomycota. Correlation analysis revealed that the sizes of ITS1 and ITS2 show a strong positive correlation, suggesting that the 2 rDNA regions have co-evolved. This supports biochemical evidence indicating that the ITS1 and ITS2 segments interact to facilitate the maturation of the rRNA precursor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".