Impact of genomics on the understanding of microbial evolution and classification: the importance of Darwin's views on classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of genome sequences, by some approaches, suggest that the widespread occurrence of horizontal gene transfers (HGTs) in prokaryotes disguises their evolutionary relationships and have led to questioning of the Darwinian model of evolution for prokaryotes. These inferences are critically examined in the light of comparative genome analysis, characteristic synapomorphies, phylogenetic trees and Darwin's views on examining evolutionary relationships. Genome sequences are enabling discovery of numerous molecular markers (synapomorphies) such as conserved signature indels (CSIs) and conserved signature proteins (CSPs), which are distinctive characteristics of different prokaryotic taxa. Based on these molecular markers, exhibiting high degree of specificity and predictive ability, numerous prokaryotic taxa of different ranks, currently identified based on the 16S rRNA gene trees, can now be reliably demarcated in molecular terms. Within all studied groups, multiple CSIs and CSPs have been identified for successive nested clades providing reliable information regarding their hierarchical relationships and these inferences are not affected by HGTs. These results strongly support Darwin's views on evolution and classification and supplement the current phylogenetic framework based on 16S rRNA in important respects. The identified molecular markers provide important means for developing novel diagnostics, therapeutics and for functional studies providing important insights regarding prokaryotic taxa.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".