MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122961021 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0326

Diversity and origins of anaerobic metabolism in mitochondria and related organelles

2015· review· en· W2122961021 on OpenAlexafffund
Courtney W. Stairs, Michelle M. Leger, Andrew J. Roger

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyAnaerobic exerciseOrganelleMitochondrionMetagenomicsEvolutionary biologyMetabolic pathwayComputational biologyGeneticsGenePhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across the diversity of life, organisms have evolved different strategies to thrive in hypoxic environments, and microbial eukaryotes (protists) are no exception. Protists that experience hypoxia often possess metabolically distinct mitochondria called mitochondrion-related organelles (MROs). While there are some common metabolic features shared between the MROs of distantly related protists, these organelles have evolved independently multiple times across the breadth of eukaryotic diversity. Until recently, much of our knowledge regarding the metabolic potential of different MROs was limited to studies in parasitic lineages. Over the past decade, deep-sequencing studies of free-living anaerobic protists have revealed novel configurations of metabolic pathways that have been co-opted for life in low oxygen environments. Here, we provide recent examples of anaerobic metabolism in the MROs of free-living protists and their parasitic relatives. Additionally, we outline evolutionary scenarios to explain the origins of these anaerobic pathways in eukaryotes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations185
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207