MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548881048 · doi:10.1038/srep36089

Mitochondrial genomes and comparative genomics of Aphanomyces astaci and Aphanomyces invadans

2016· article· en· W2548881048 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Makkonen, Arto Vesterbacka, Frank N. Martin, Japo Jussila, Javier Diéguez‐Uribeondo, Raine Kortet

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMaj ja Tor Nesslingin SäätiöSuomen KulttuurirahastoItä-Suomen Yliopisto
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsGenomeWhole genome sequencingRibosomal RNAComparative genomicsPhylogenetic treeGenomicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Aphanomyces (Saprolegniales, Oomycetes) includes species with a variety of ecologies from saprotrophs to plant and animal parasites. Two important species in this genus are A. astaci, the cause of crayfish plague and its close relative, A. invadans, which causes the epizootic ulcerative syndrome on fish. In this study, we have assembled and annotated the mitochondrial (mt) genomes of A. astaci and A. invadans from the whole genome shotgun sequence reads (PRJNA187372; PRJNA258292, respectively). The assembly was generated from A. astaci Pc-genotype strain APO3 and A. invadans strain NJM9701. The sizes of the mtDNAs were 49,489 bp and 49,061 bp for A. astaci and A. invadans, respectively. The species shared similar genetic content and organization encoding 35 proteins, two ribosomal RNAs, three putative open reading frames and 33 transfer RNAs of 19 amino acids for peptide synthesis. Both species also had a large inverted repeat region (LIR) of approximately 12 kb, the LIR contained large and small ribosomal RNAs and eight protein coding genes. These annotated mt genomes serve as a valuable genetic backbone for further development of diagnostic methods and phylogenetic and migration studies of the animal parasitic species of Aphanomyces.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207