Phylogenetic Artifacts Can be Caused by Leucine, Serine, and Arginine Codon Usage Heterogeneity: Dinoflagellate Plastid Origins as a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic analyses of first and second codon positions (DNA1 + 2 analysis) and amino acid sequences (protein analysis) are often thought to provide similar estimates of deep-level phylogeny. However, here we report a novel artifact influencing DNA level phylogenetic inference of protein-coding genes introduced by codon usage heterogeneity that causes significant incongruities between DNA1 + 2 and protein analyses. DNA1 + 2 analyses of plastid-encoded psbA genes (encoding of photosystem II D1 proteins) strongly suggest a relationship between haptophyte plastids and typical (peridinin-containing) dinoflagellate plastids. The psbA genes from haptophytes and a subset of the peridinin-type plastids display similar codon usage patterns for Leu, Ser, and Arg, which are each encoded by two separated codon sets that differ at first or first plus second codon positions. Our detailed analyses clearly indicate that these unusual preferences shared by haptophyte and some peridinin-type plastid genes are largely responsible for their strong affinity in DNA analyses. In particular, almost all of the support from DNA level analyses for the monophyly of haptophyte and peridinin-type plastids is lost when the codons corresponding to constant Leu, Ser, and Arg amino acids are excluded, suggesting that this signal comes from rapidly evolving synonymous substitutions, rather than from substitutions that result in amino acid changes. Indeed, protein maximum-likelihood analyses of concatenated PsaA and PsbA amino acid sequences indicate that, although 19' hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin-type (19' HNOF-type) plastids in dinoflagellates group with haptophyte plastids, peridinin-type plastids group weakly with those of stramenopiles. Consequently our results cast doubt on the single origin of peridinin-type and 19' HNOF-type plastids in dinoflagellates previously suggested on the basis of psaA and psbA concatenated gene phylogenetic analyses. We suggest that codon usage heterogeneity could be a more general problem for DNA level analyses of protein-coding genes, even when third codon positions are excluded.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".