Evolutionary distribution of light-harvesting complex-like proteins in photosynthetic eukaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light-harvesting-like (LIL) proteins are low-molecular-mass membrane proteins related to the light-harvesting complexes, which form the dominant antenna system in most photosynthetic eukaryotes. To analyze the LIL protein family, we mined a number of publicly available databases to identify members of this family in a broad range of organisms. LIL proteins are diverse, having one to three predicted transmembrane helices. One- and two-helix LIL proteins were found in all the major photosynthetic eukaryote lineages (glaucophytes, red algae, and green algae) and are particularly well conserved in the green algae and land plants. In most cases, however, these proteins are not conserved between major lineages, and in some cases appear to have evolved independently. Three-helix LIL proteins are well conserved within the gymnosperms and angiosperms, but are much more divergent, and have been duplicated multiple times, in the green algae and bryophytes. We also identified a novel LIL protein in two Micromonas strains that contains a fourth hydrophobic region. This analysis identifies conserved members of the LIL protein family, signifying their importance to photosynthetic eukaryotes. It also indicates that classification of these proteins based on structural characteristics alone inadequately reflects the evolutionary history observed in this complex protein family.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".