Phylogenetic analysis of<i>Ganoderma</i>based on nearly complete mitochondrial small-subunit ribosomal DNA sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characteristics and structures of mt SSU rDNA were investigated for the phylogenetic study of Ganoderma. Phylogenetic information was concentrated mostly in the V1, V4, V5, V6 and V9 variable domains, but informative sites in conserved domains also significantly contributed in resolving phylogenetic relationships between Ganoderma groups. Secondary structure information of variable domains was found to be a useful marker in delineation of phylogenetic groups. Strains of Ganoderma species used in this study were divided into six monophyletic groups. Ganoderma colossus made a distinct basal lineage from other Ganoderma species and Tomophagus, created for G. colosuss, appeared to be a valid genus. Ganoderma applanatum and G. lobatum classified in subgenus Elfvingia made a monophyletic group. Ganoderma tsugae from North America and G. valesiacum from Europe, both living on conifers, were closely related. Ganoderma oregonense and strains labeled G. lucidum from Europe and Canada were grouped with G. tsugae and G. valesiacum. Strains labeled G. lucidum living on hardwoods from the United States and Taiwan were grouped with G. resinaceum, G. pfeifferi and G. subamboinense var. laevisporum, and they all produced chlamydospores. Two strains labeled G. lucidum and three strains labeled G. resinaceum from America were concluded to be conspecific. Strains labeled G. lucidum from Korea and Japan were monophyletic and were distinguished from strains labeled G. lucidum from Europe and North America. Host relationships and the presence of chlamydospores in culture proved to be important characteristics in the systematics as well as the phylogenetic relationships of Ganoderma.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".