MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234205654 · doi:10.1038/srep17389

Fragmented mitochondrial genomes in two suborders of parasitic lice of eutherian mammals (Anoplura and Rhynchophthirina, Insecta)

2015· article· en· W2234205654 on OpenAlexaff
Renfu Shao, Stephen C. Barker, Hu Li, Simon Song, Shreekanta S. Poudel, Yuan Su

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsManitoba Health
FundersAustralian Research CouncilChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyLouseZoologyGenomeMitochondrial DNAPhylogenetic treePlatypusEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parasitic lice (order Phthiraptera) infest birds and mammals. The typical animal mitochondrial (mt) genome organization, which consists of a single chromosome with 37 genes, was found in chewing lice in the suborders Amblycera and Ischnocera. The sucking lice (suborder Anoplura) known, however, have fragmented mt genomes with 9-20 minichromosomes. We sequenced the mt genome of the elephant louse, Haematomyzus elephantis - the first species of chewing lice investigated from the suborder Rhynchophthirina. We identified 33 mt genes in the elephant louse, which were on 10 minichromosomes. Each minichromosome is 3.5-4.2 kb in size and has 2-6 genes. Phylogenetic analyses of mt genome sequences confirm that the elephant louse is more closely related to sucking lice than to the chewing lice in the Amblycera and Ischnocera. Our results indicate that mt genome fragmentation is shared by the suborders Anoplura and Rhynchophthirina. Nine of the 10 mt minichromosomes of the elephant louse differ from those of the sucking lice (Anoplura) known in gene content and gene arrangement, indicating that distinct mt karyotypes have evolved in Anoplura and Rhynchophthirina since they diverged ~92 million years ago.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207