MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173838437 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evv229

Unexpectedly Streamlined Mitochondrial Genome of the Euglenozoan<i>Euglena gracilis</i>

2015· article· en· W2173838437 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Dobáková, Pavel Flegontov, Tomáš Skalický, Julius Lukeš

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersLomonosov Moscow State UniversityOstravská Univerzita v OstravěGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBiologyEuglena gracilisGenomeGeneticsMitochondrial DNARibosomal RNAGeneRNA editingTranscriptomeRNAGene expressionChloroplast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we describe the mitochondrial genome of the excavate flagellate Euglena gracilis. Its gene complement is reduced as compared with the well-studied sister groups Diplonemea and Kinetoplastea. We have identified seven protein-coding genes: Three subunits of respiratory complex I (nad1, nad4, and nad5), one subunit of complex III (cob), and three subunits of complex IV (cox1, cox2, and a highly divergent cox3). Moreover, fragments of ribosomal RNA genes have also been identified. Genes encoding subunits of complex V, ribosomal proteins and tRNAs were missing, and are likely located in the nuclear genome. Although mitochondrial genomes of diplonemids and kinetoplastids possess the most complex RNA processing machineries known, including trans-splicing and editing of the uridine insertion/deletion type, respectively, our transcriptomic data suggest their total absence in E. gracilis. This finding supports a scenario in which the complex mitochondrial processing machineries of both sister groups evolved relatively late in evolution from a streamlined genome and transcriptome of their common predecessor.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207