MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2426946809 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msw109

Functional Relationship between a Dinoflagellate Host and Its Diatom Endosymbiont

2016· article· en· W2426946809 on OpenAlexafffund
Elisabeth Hehenberger, Fabien Burki, Martin Kolísko, Patrick J. Keeling

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTula FoundationCompute Canada
KeywordsBiologyEndosymbiosisDinoflagellateObligateHost (biology)SymbiosisDiatomTranscriptomePlastidEvolutionary biologyOrganelleProtistEcologyGeneCell biologyGeneticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While we know much about the evolutionary patterns of endosymbiotic organelle origins, we know less about how the actual process unfolded within each system. This is partly due to the massive changes endosymbiosis appears to trigger, and partly because most organelles evolved in the distant past. The dinotoms are dinoflagellates with diatom endosymbionts, and they represent a relatively recent but nevertheless obligate endosymbiotic association. We have carried out deep sequencing of both the host and endosymbiont transcriptomes from two dinotoms, Durinskia baltica and Glenodinium foliaceum, to examine how the nucleocytosolic compartments have functionally integrated. This analysis showed little or no functional reduction in either the endosymbiont or host, and no evidence for genetic integration. Rather, host and endosymbiont seem to be bound to each other via metabolites, such as photosynthate exported from the endosymbiont to the host as indicated by the presence of plastidic phosphate translocators in the host transcriptome. The host is able to synthesize starch, using plant-specific starch synthases, as a way to store imported photosynthate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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