Insights into the phylogeny of systematically controversial haptorian ciliates (Ciliophora, Litostomatea) based on multigene analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ciliate subclass Haptoria is a diverse taxon that includes most of the free-living predators in the class Litostomatea. Phylogenetic study of this group was initially conducted using a single molecular marker small-subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU rRNA genes). Multi-gene analysis has been limited because very few other sequences were available. We performed phylogenetic analyses of Haptoria incorporating new SSU rRNA gene sequences from several debated members of the taxon, in particular, the first molecular data from Cyclotrichium. We also provided nine large-subunit ribosomal RNA (LSU rRNA) gene sequences and 10 alpha-tubulin sequences from diverse haptorians, and two possible relatives of controversial haptorians (Plagiopylea, Prostomatea). Phylogenies inferred from the different molecules showed the following: (i) Cyclotrichium and Paraspathidium were clearly separated from the haptorids and even from class Litostomatea, rejecting their high-level taxonomic assignments based on morphology. Both genera branch instead with the classes Plagiopylea, Prostomatea and Oligohymenophora. This raises the possibility that the well-known but phylogenetically problematic cyclotrichiids Mesodinium and Myrionecta may also have affinities here, rather than with litostomes; (ii) the transfer of Trachelotractus to Litostomatea is supported, especially by the analyses of SSU rRNA and LSU rRNA genes, however, Trachelotractus and Chaenea (more uncertainly) generally form the two deepest lineages within litostomes; and (iii) phylogenies of the new molecular markers are consistent with SSU rRNA gene information in recovering order Pleurostomatida as monophyletic. However, Pleurostomatida branches cladistically within order Haptorida, as does subclass Trichostomatia (on the basis of SSU rRNA phylogenies). Our results suggest that the class-level taxonomy of ciliates is still not resolved, and also that a systematic revision of litostomes is required, beginning at high taxonomic levels (taxa currently ranked as subclasses and orders).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".