Phylogenomic Analyses Support the Monophyly of Taphrinomycotina, including <i>Schizosaccharomyces</i> Fission Yeasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several morphologically dissimilar ascomycete fungi including Schizosaccharomyces, Taphrina, Saitoella, Pneumocystis, and Neolecta have been grouped into the taxon Taphrinomycotina (Archiascomycota or Archiascomycotina), originally based on rRNA phylogeny. These analyses lack statistically significant support for the monophyly of this grouping, and although confirmed by more recent multigene analyses, this topology is contradicted by mitochondrial phylogenies. To resolve this inconsistency, we have assembled phylogenomic mitochondrial and nuclear data sets from four distantly related taphrinomycotina taxa: Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Pneumocystis carinii, Saitoella complicata, and Taphrina deformans. Our phylogenomic analyses based on nuclear data (113 proteins) conclusively support the monophyly of Taphrinomycotina, diverging as a sister group to Saccharomycotina + Pezizomycotina. However, despite the improved taxon sampling, Taphrinomycotina continue to be paraphyletic with the mitochondrial data set (13 proteins): Schizosaccharomyces species associate with budding yeasts (Saccharomycotina) and the other Taphrinomycotina group as a sister group to Saccharomycotina + Pezizomycotina. Yet, as Schizosaccharomyces and Saccharomycotina species are fast evolving, the mitochondrial phylogeny may be influenced by a long-branch attraction (LBA) artifact. After removal of fast-evolving sequence positions from the mitochondrial data set, we recover the monophyly of Taphrinomycotina. Our combined results suggest that Taphrinomycotina is a legitimate taxon, that this group of species diverges as a sister group to Saccharomycotina + Pezizomycotina, and that phylogenetic positioning of yeasts and fission yeasts with mitochondrial data is plagued by a strong LBA artifact.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".