Bibliographic record
Abstract
By synthesizing data from individual gene phylogenies, large concatenated gene trees, and other kinds of molecular, morphological, and biochemical markers, we begin to see the broad outlines of a global phylogenetic tree of eukaryotes. This tree is apparently composed of five large assemblages, or "supergroups." Plants and algae, or more generally eukaryotes with plastids (the photosynthetic organelle of plants and algae and their nonphotosynthetic derivatives) are scattered among four of the five supergroups. This is because plastids have had a complex evolutionary history involving several endosymbiotic events that have led to their transmission from one group to another. Here, the history of the plastid and of its various hosts is reviewed with particular attention to the number and nature of the endosymbiotic events that led to the current distribution of plastids. There is accumulating evidence to support a single primary origin of plastids from a cyanobacterium (with one intriguing possible exception in the little-studied amoeba Paulinella), followed by the diversification of glaucophytes, red and green algae, with plants evolving from green algae. Following this, some of these algae were themselves involved in secondary endosymbiotic events. The best current evidence indicates that two independent secondary endosymbioses involving green algae gave rise to euglenids and chlorarachniophytes, whereas a single endosymbiosis with a red algae gave rise to the chromalveolates, a diverse group including cryptomonads, haptophytes, heterokonts, and alveolates. Dinoflagellates (alveolates) have since taken up other algae in serial secondary and tertiary endosymbioses, raising a number of controversies over the origin of their plastids, and by extension, the recently discovered cryptic plastid of the closely related apicomplexan parasites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".