Choanoflagellate and choanocyte collar‐flagellar systems and the assumption of homology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The similarities between the choanoflagellates and the choanocytes of sponges have been discussed for more than a century yet few studies allow a direct comparison of the two. We reviewed current knowledge of the collar and flagellum and compared their structure and function in the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the sponge Spongilla lacustris. Collar microvilli were of similar length and number, but the shape of the collar differed between the two cells. In Monosiga, collars were flared and microvilli were joined by a single band of glycocalyx mid-way along their length; in Spongilla, collars formed a tube and microvilli were joined by a mesh of glycocalyx. Monosiga flagella beat at least four times faster than those in Spongilla. Flagellar vanes were found in both cell types. In both cells, the flagella and so probably also the vanes maintained moving points of contact with the microvilli, which suggested that collars and flagella were integrated systems rather than independent units. There were fundamental differences in how the collar and flagella interacted, however. In Spongilla, the flagellum bent upon contact with the collar; the flagellar amplitude was fitted to the collar diameter. In Monosiga, the flagellar amplitude was unaffected by the collar; instead the collar diameter appeared fitted to the flagellum. These differences suggest that though choanocytes and choanoflagellates are similar, homology cannot be taken for granted. Similarities in collar-flagellum systems separated by 600 million years of evolution, whether maintained or convergent, suggest that these form important adaptations for optimizing fluid flow through micro-scale filters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".