MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular Phylogeny of Three Oxymonad Genera: <i>Pyrsonympha, Dinenympha</i> and <i>Oxymonas</i>

2003· article· en· W2147040596 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shigeharu Moriya, Joel B. Dacks, AIKA TAKAGI, Satoko Noda, Moriya Ohkuma, W. Ford Doolittle, Toshiaki Kudo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersRIKENCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyCladeTaxonPhylogenetic treePhylogeneticsLineage (genetic)ZoologyGenusEvolutionary biologyMolecular phylogeneticsEcologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxymonads are a morphologically well-characterized and highly diverse lineage of protists. They are, however, under sampled at a molecular level. It has recently been demonstrated that a genus of oxymonads, Pyrsonympha, is phylogenetically related to the excavate taxon Trimastix. Here, we addressed issues of internal oxymonad evolution. Pyrsonympha and Dinenympha are shown, by fluorescent in situ hybridization and phylogenetic evidence, to be separate genera and not morphotypes of the same organism. We demonstrated that three genera of oxymonads, Dinenympha, Pyrsonympha, and Oxymonas are each monophyletic and together form a clade which excludes other known eukaryotes. We have presented a taxonomic scheme of oxymonads taking into account their sisterhood with Trimastix and speculated on morphological evolution of oxymonads, particularly of their attachment apparatuses. Our biogeographical analysis with Japanese and Canadian Pyrsonympha and Dinenympha suggests that these genera diverged before the separation of termites that inhabit Eastern Asia and Western North America.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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