A Family of Selfish Minicircular Chromosomes with Jumbled Chloroplast Gene Fragments from a Dinoflagellate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chloroplast genes of several dinoflagellate species are located on unigenic DNA minicircular chromosomes. We have now completely sequenced five aberrant minicircular chromosomes from the dinoflagellate Heterocapsa triquetra. These probably nonfunctional DNA circles lack complete genes, with each being composed of several short fragments of two or three different chloroplast genes and a common conserved region with a tripartite 9G-9A-9G core like the putative replicon origin of functional single-gene circular chloroplast chromosomes. Their sequences imply that all five circles evolved by differential deletions and duplications from common ancestral circles bearing fragments of four genes: psbA, psbC, 16S rRNA, and 23S rRNA. It appears that recombination between separate unigenic chromosomes initially gave intermediate heterodimers, which were subsequently stabilized by deletions that included part or all of one putative replicon origin. We suggest that homologous recombination at the 9G-9A-9G core regions produced a psbA/psbC heterodimer which generated two distinct chimeric circles by differential deletions and duplications. A 23S/16S rRNA heterodimer more likely formed by illegitimate recombination between 16S and 23S rRNA genes. Homologous recombination between the 9G-9A-9G core regions of both heterodimers and additional differential deletions and duplications could then have yielded the other three circles. Near identity of the gene fragments and 9G-9A-9G cores, despite diverging adjacent regions, may be maintained by gene conversion. The conserved organization of the 9G-9A-9G cores alone favors the idea that they are replicon origins and suggests that they may enable the aberrant minicircles to parasitize the chloroplast's replication machinery as selfish circles.
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".