Plastid Genome Sequence of the Cryptophyte Alga Rhodomonas salina CCMP1319: Lateral Transfer of Putative DNA Replication Machinery and a Test of Chromist Plastid Phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptophytes are a group of unicellular algae with chlorophyll c-containing plastids derived from the uptake of a secondary (i.e., eukaryotic) endosymbiont. Biochemical and molecular data indicate that cryptophyte plastids are derived from red algae, yet the question of whether or not cryptophytes acquired their red algal plastids independent of those in heterokont, haptophyte, and dinoflagellate algae is of long-standing debate. To better understand the origin and evolution of the cryptophyte plastid, we have sequenced the plastid genome of Rhodomonas salina CCMP1319: at 135,854 bp, it is the largest secondary plastid genome characterized thus far. It also possesses interesting features not seen in the distantly related cryptophyte Guillardia theta or in other red secondary plastids, including pseudogenes, introns, and a bacterial-derived gene for the tau/gamma subunit of DNA polymerase III (dnaX), the first time putative DNA replication machinery has been found encoded in any plastid genome. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that dnaX was acquired by lateral gene transfer (LGT) in an ancestor of Rhodomonas, most likely from a firmicute bacterium. A phylogenomic survey revealed no additional cases of LGT, beyond a noncyanobacterial type rpl36 gene similar to that recently characterized in other cryptophytes and haptophytes. Rigorous concatenated analysis of 45 proteins encoded in 15 complete plastid genomes produced trees in which the heterokont, haptophyte, and cryptophyte (i.e., chromist) plastids were monophyletic, and heterokonts and haptophytes were each other's closest relatives. However, statistical support for chromist monophyly disappears when amino acids are recoded according to their chemical properties in order to minimize the impact of composition bias, and a significant fraction of the concatenate appears consistent with a sister-group relationship between cryptophyte and haptophyte plastids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".