Taxonomy of selected species of Myxobolus (Myxozoa) from freshwater fishes in Canada : applications of light microscopy and molecular methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species of Myxobolus (Myxozoa) are compared on the basis of spore morphology, site of development, host species and sequence data of the 18S rDNA. The first situation compares the morphology and molecular features of Myxobolus procerus from large intercellular and small intracellular cysts in trout-perch ( Percopsis omiscomaycus ) muscle. The data suggests that spores from each cyst type represent a single species of Myxobolus with variable cyst phenotypes. Interestingly, spores from the small cysts were shorter than those from the large cysts implying ecophenotypic variation. The fact that the two cyst types did not occur independently of each other suggests that they are a single species. The observed differences in the morphological and molecular data suggest species divergence. The second situation provides a comparison between Myxobolus neurophilus from the optic tectum of yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ) and specimens that were tentatively identified as M. neurophilus from the tectum of Johnny darter ( Etheostoma nigrum ). Although the morphology of the spores of these samples is very similar, molecular information identifies the latter parasite as a possible new species of Myxobolus . The morphological and molecular similarities between these three species are examined on both an individual basis and between other species in the genus Myxobolus . Phylogenies are drawn from the molecular data and a phylogenetic tree is constructed that includes sequences presented in the current work which have not been analysed at this level. The validity of traditional taxonomic methods and their use in classification of the myxobolids is discussed. Alternately modern techniques of molecular biology and their role in the taxonomy of these parasites are evaluated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".