The chloroplast genome sequence of the green alga Leptosira terrestris: multiple losses of the inverted repeat and extensive genome rearrangements within the Trebouxiophyceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Chlorophyta--the green algal phylum comprising the classes Prasinophyceae, Ulvophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae and Chlorophyceae--the chloroplast genome displays a highly variable architecture. While chlorophycean chloroplast DNAs (cpDNAs) deviate considerably from the ancestral pattern described for the prasinophyte Nephroselmis olivacea, the degree of remodelling sustained by the two ulvophyte cpDNAs completely sequenced to date is intermediate relative to those observed for chlorophycean and trebouxiophyte cpDNAs. Chlorella vulgaris (Chlorellales) is currently the only photosynthetic trebouxiophyte whose complete cpDNA sequence has been reported. To gain insights into the evolutionary trends of the chloroplast genome in the Trebouxiophyceae, we sequenced cpDNA from the filamentous alga Leptosira terrestris (Ctenocladales). RESULTS: The 195,081-bp Leptosira chloroplast genome resembles the 150,613-bp Chlorella genome in lacking a large inverted repeat (IR) but differs greatly in gene order. Six of the conserved genes present in Chlorella cpDNA are missing from the Leptosira gene repertoire. The 106 conserved genes, four introns and 11 free standing open reading frames (ORFs) account for 48.3% of the genome sequence. This is the lowest gene density yet observed among chlorophyte cpDNAs. Contrary to the situation in Chlorella but similar to that in the chlorophycean Scenedesmus obliquus, the gene distribution is highly biased over the two DNA strands in Leptosira. Nine genes, compared to only three in Chlorella, have significantly expanded coding regions relative to their homologues in ancestral-type green algal cpDNAs. As observed in chlorophycean genomes, the rpoB gene is fragmented into two ORFs. Short repeats account for 5.1% of the Leptosira genome sequence and are present mainly in intergenic regions. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the great plasticity of the chloroplast genome in the Trebouxiophyceae and indicate that the IR was lost on at least two separate occasions. The intriguing similarities of the derived features exhibited by Leptosira cpDNA and its chlorophycean counterparts suggest that the same evolutionary forces shaped the IR-lacking chloroplast genomes in these two algal lineages.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".