MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Light Microscopic Observations, Ultrastructure, and Molecular Phylogeny of <i>Hicanonectes teleskopos</i> n. g., n. sp., a Deep‐Branching Relative of Diplomonads

2009· article· en· W2131064857 on OpenAlexaff
Jong Soo Park, Martin Kolísko, Aaron A. Heiss, Alastair G. B. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFlagellateUltrastructureFlagellumPhylogeneticsRibosomal RNABotanyProtistOrganelleBasal bodyEvolutionary biologyAnatomyGeneCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe Hicanonectes teleskopos n. g., n. sp., a heterotrophic flagellate isolated from low-oxygen marine sediment. Hicanonectes teleskopos has a ventral groove and two unequal flagella, and rapidly rotates during swimming. At the ultrastructural level H. teleskopos is a "typical excavate": it displays flagellar vanes, a split right microtubular root, "I,""B," and "C" fibres, a singlet microtubular root, and a possible composite fibre. Small subunit rRNA (SSU rRNA) gene phylogenies and an "arched" B fibre demonstrate that H. teleskopos belongs to Fornicata (i.e. diplomonads, retortamonads, and relatives). It forms a clade with the deep-branching fornicate Carpediemonas, with moderate-to-strong bootstrap support, although their SSU rRNA gene sequences are quite dissimilar. Hicanonectes differs from Carpediemonas in cell shape, swimming behaviour, number of basal bodies (i.e. 4 vs. 3), number of flagellar vanes (i.e. 2 vs. 3), anterior root organization, and by having a cytopharynx. Like Carpediemonas and Dysnectes, Hicanonectes has conspicuous mitochondrion-like organelles that lack cristae and superficially resemble the hydrogenosomes of parabasalids, rather than the mitosomes of their closer relatives the diplomonads (e.g. Giardia).

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207