Molecular systematics of Helicoma, Helicomyces and Helicosporium and their teleomorphs inferred from rDNA sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three genera of asexual, helical-spored fungi, Helicoma, Helicomyces and Helicosporium traditionally have been differentiated by the morphology of their conidia and conidiophores. In this paper we assessed their phylogenetic relationships from ribosomal sequences from ITS, 5.8S and partial LSU regions using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian analysis. Forty-five isolates from the three genera were closely related and were within the teleomorphic genus Tubeufia sensu Barr (Tubeufiaceae, Ascomycota). Most of the species could be placed in one of the seven clades that each received 78% or greater bootstrap support. However none of the anamorphic genera were monophyletic and all but one of the clades contained species from more than one genus. The 15 isolates of Helicoma were scattered through the phylogeny and appeared in five of the clades. None of the four sections within the genus were monophyletic, although species from Helicoma sect. helicoma were concentrated in Clade A. The Helicosporium species also appeared in five clades. The four Helicomyces species were distributed among three clades. Most of the clades supported by sequence data lacked unifying morphological characters. Traditional characters such as the thickness of the conidial filament and whether conidiophores were conspicuous or reduced proved to be poor predictors of phylogenetic relationships. However some combinations of characters including conidium colour and the presence of lateral, tooth-like conidiogenous cells did appear to be predictive of genetic relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 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".