The mitochondrial genome of Paragyrodactylus variegatus (Platyhelminthes: Monogenea): differences in major non-coding region and gene order compared to Gyrodactylus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paragyrodactylus Gvosdev and Martechov, 1953, a viviparous genus of ectoparasite within the Gyrodactylidae, contains three nominal species all of which infect Asian river loaches. The group is suspected to be a basal lineage within Gyrodactylus Nordmann, 1832 sensu lato although this remains unclear. Further molecular study, beyond characterization of the standard Internal Transcribed Spacer region, is needed to clarify the evolutionary relationships within the family and the placement of this genus. METHODS: The mitochondrial genome of Paragyrodactylus variegatus You, King, Ye and Cone, 2014 was amplified in six parts from a single worm, sequenced using primer walking, annotated and analyzed using bioinformatic tools. RESULTS: The mitochondrial genome of P. variegatus is 14,517 bp, containing 12 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 22 transfer RNA (tRNA) genes, two ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes and a major non-coding region (NCR). The overall A + T content of the mitochondrial genome is 76.3%, which is higher than all reported mitochondrial genomes of monogeneans. All of the 22 tRNAs have the typical cloverleaf secondary structure, except tRNACys, tRNASer1 and tRNASer2 that lack the dihydrouridine (DHU) arm. There are six domains (domain III is absent) and three domains in the inferred secondary structures of the large ribosomal subunit (rrnL) and small ribosomal subunit (rrnS), respectively. The NCR includes six 40 bp tandem repeat units and has the double identical poly-T stretches, stem-loop structure and some surrounding structure elements. The gene order (tRNAGln, tRNAMet and NCR) differs in arrangement compared to the mitochondrial genomes reported from Gyrodactylus spp. CONCLUSION: The Duplication and Random Loss Model and Recombination Model together are the most plausible explanations for the variation in gene order. Both morphological characters and characteristics of the mitochondrial genome support Paragyrodactylus as a distinct genus from Gyrodactylus. Considering their specific distribution and known hosts, we believe that Paragyrodactylus is a relict freshwater lineage of viviparous monogenean isolated in the high plateaus of central Asia on closely related river loaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".