Re‐examining Alveolate Evolution Using Multiple Protein Molecular Phylogenies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alveolates are a diverse group of protists that includes three major lineages: ciliates, apicomplexa, and dinoflagellates. Among these three, it is thought that the apicomplexa and dinoflagellates are more closely related to one another than to ciliates. However, this conclusion is based almost entirely on results from ribosomal RNA phylogeny because very few morphological characters address this issue and scant molecular data are available from dinoflagellates. To better examine the relationships between the three major alveolate groups, we have sequenced six genes from the non-photosynthetic dinoflagellate, Crypthecodinium cohnii: actin, beta-tubulin, hsp70, BiP, hsp90, and mitochondrial hsp10. Beta-tubulin, hsp70, BiP, and hsp90 were found to be useful for intra-alveolate phylogeny, and trees were inferred from these genes individually and in combination. Trees inferred from individual genes generally supported the apicomplexa-dinoflagellate grouping, as did a combined analysis of all four genes. However, it was also found that the outgroup had a significant effect on the topology within alveolates when using certain methods of phylogenetic reconstruction, and an alternative topology clustering dinoflagellates and ciliates could not be rejected by the combined data. Altogether, these results support the sisterhood of apicomplexa and dinoflagellates, but point out that the relationship is not as strong as is often assumed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".