Affinities of the freshwater red alga<i>Audouinella macrospora</i>(Florideophyceae, Rhodophyta) and related forms based on ssu rrna gene sequence analysis and pit plug ultrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small subunit rDNA sequencing and transmission electron microscopy were performed to clarify the ordinal affinities ofAudouinella macrospora(Wood) Sheath et Burkholder isolates 3394, 3395, and 3603, as well asChantransiasp. isolate 3585. Culture 3603 is known to produce thalli ofBatrachospermum ‐like morphology under certain culture conditions. Sequence analyses unequivocally placed the threeAudouinella macrosporaisolates in a clade withBatrachospermum macrosporumMontagne of the Batrachospermales, andChantransiasp. was found to have affinities withB. louisianaeSkuja andB. virgato‐decaisneanumSirodot. The pit plugs of theAudouinella macrosporacultures 3394 and 3395 were nearly identical in size and structure, having thickened plug caps and no cap membranes. Both of these features agree with those of the Batrachospermaceae, with the latter feature showing batrachospermacean rather than acrochaetioid affinities. Pit plugs in the chantransia phase of 3603 were similar, but the plug caps were less well developed. TheBatrachospermumphase generated from 3603 had pit plugs that were variable in diameter, according to location in the thallus, thus reflecting the more variable cell size in this phase. Dome‐like outer caps, considered typical ofBatrachospermum, were present between cells of the determinate lateral filaments. The pit plugs ofChantransiasp. had prominent, dome‐like outer caps, but the plug cores were strikingly and consistently smaller in diameter than those of theA. macrosporachantransia cultures, suggesting that plug diameter may be of systematic value in some contexts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".