MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126767783 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1421374112

Genomic perspectives on the birth and spread of plastids

2015· article· en· W2126767783 on OpenAlexafffund
John M. Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsEndosymbiosisPlastidBiologyHorizontal gene transferContext (archaeology)AlgaeEvolutionary biologyTree of life (biology)Green algaeGeneBotanyGenomePhylogeneticsGeneticsChloroplastPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The endosymbiotic origin of plastids from cyanobacteria was a landmark event in the history of eukaryotic life. Subsequent to the evolution of primary plastids, photosynthesis spread from red and green algae to unrelated eukaryotes by secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis. Although the movement of cyanobacterial genes from endosymbiont to host is well studied, less is known about the migration of eukaryotic genes from one nucleus to the other in the context of serial endosymbiosis. Here I explore the magnitude and potential impact of nucleus-to-nucleus endosymbiotic gene transfer in the evolution of complex algae, and the extent to which such transfers compromise our ability to infer the deep structure of the eukaryotic tree of life. In addition to endosymbiotic gene transfer, horizontal gene transfer events occurring before, during, and after endosymbioses further confound our efforts to reconstruct the ancient mergers that forged multiple lines of photosynthetic microbial 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations164
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207