Analysis of the mitochondrial maxicircle of Trypanosoma lewisi, a neglected human pathogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The haemoflagellate Trypanosoma lewisi is a kinetoplastid parasite which, as it has been recently reported to cause human disease, deserves increased attention. Characteristic features of all kinetoplastid flagellates are a uniquely structured mitochondrial DNA or kinetoplast, comprised of a network of catenated DNA circles, and RNA editing of mitochondrial transcripts. The aim of this study was to describe the kinetoplast DNA of T. lewisi. METHODS/RESULTS: In this study, purified kinetoplast DNA from T. lewisi was sequenced using high-throughput sequencing in combination with sequencing of PCR amplicons. This allowed the assembly of the T. lewisi kinetoplast maxicircle DNA, which is a homologue of the mitochondrial genome in other eukaryotes. The assembly of 23,745 bp comprises the non-coding and coding regions. Comparative analysis of the maxicircle sequence of T. lewisi with Trypanosoma cruzi, Trypanosoma rangeli, Trypanosoma brucei and Leishmania tarentolae revealed that it shares 78%, 77%, 74% and 66% sequence identity with these parasites, respectively. The high GC content in at least 9 maxicircle genes of T. lewisi (ATPase6; NADH dehydrogenase subunits ND3, ND7, ND8 and ND9; G-rich regions GR3 and GR4; cytochrome oxidase subunit COIII and ribosomal protein RPS12) implies that their products may be extensively edited. A detailed analysis of the non-coding region revealed that it contains numerous repeat motifs and palindromes. CONCLUSIONS: We have sequenced and comprehensively annotated the kinetoplast maxicircle of T. lewisi. Our analysis reveals that T. lewisi is closely related to T. cruzi and T. brucei, and may share similar RNA editing patterns with them rather than with L. tarentolae. These findings provide novel insight into the biological features of this emerging human pathogen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".