MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic, Morphological, and Ecological Diversity of Spatially Separated Clones of <i>Meseres corlissi</i> Petz &amp; Foissner, 1992 (Ciliophora, Spirotrichea)

2008· article· en· W2105144710 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Weisse, Michaela C. Strüder‐Kypke, Helmut Berger, Wilhelm Foissner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBiological dispersalIntraspecific competitionAdaptation (eye)EcologyLocal adaptationGenetic diversityBiogeographyGenetic variationSubtropicsZoologyGeneGeneticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the intraspecific variation of the spirotrich freshwater ciliate Meseres corlissi at the level of genes (SSrDNA, ITS), morphology (14 characters), and ecophysiology (response to temperature and pH). Five of the eight clonal M. corlissi cultures isolated from five localities on four continents were studied at all levels. The null hypothesis was that geographic distance plays no role: M. corlissi lacks biogeography. The intraspecific variation was low at the genetic level (0%-4%), moderate at the morphological level (5%-15%), and high at the ecophysiological level (10%-100%). One clone, isolated from subtropical China, differed significantly at all levels from all other clones, suggesting limited dispersal and local adaptation among M. corlissi. However, other clones from distant areas, such as Australia and Austria, were genetically identical and differed only slightly in morphology and temperature response. We speculate that our findings may be typical for rare species; the chances may be equally high for both global dispersal of most and local adaptation of some populations in areas where dispersal has been permanently or temporarily reduced.

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 score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207