Evidence for the Retention of Two Evolutionary Distinct Plastids in Dinoflagellates with Diatom Endosymbionts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinoflagellates harboring diatom endosymbionts (termed "dinotoms") have undergone a process often referred to as "tertiary endosymbiosis"--the uptake of algae containing secondary plastids and integration of those plastids into the new host. In contrast to other tertiary plastids, and most secondary plastids, the endosymbiont of dinotoms is distinctly less reduced, retaining a number of cellular features, such as their nucleus and mitochondria and others, in addition to their plastid. This has resulted in redundancy between host and endosymbiont, at least between some mitochondrial and cytosolic metabolism, where this has been investigated. The question of plastidial redundancy is particularly interesting as the fate of the host dinoflagellate plastid is unclear. The host cytosol possesses an eyespot that has been postulated to be a remnant of the ancestral peridinin plastid, but this has not been tested, nor has its possible retention of plastid functions. To investigate this possibility, we searched for plastid-associated pathways and functions in transcriptomic data sets from three dinotom species. We show that the dinoflagellate host has indeed retained genes for plastid-associated pathways and that these genes encode targeting peptides similar to those of other dinoflagellate plastid-targeted proteins. Moreover, we also identified one gene encoding an essential component of the dinoflagellate plastid protein import machinery, altogether suggesting the presence of a functioning plastid import system in the host, and by extension a relict plastid. The presence of the same plastid-associated pathways in the endosymbiont also extends the known functional redundancy in dinotoms, further confirming the unusual state of plastid integration in this group of dinoflagellates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".