Evolutionary Dynamics of Cryptophyte Plastid Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptophytes are an ecologically important group of largely photosynthetic unicellular eukaryotes. This lineage is of great interest to evolutionary biologists because their plastids are of red algal secondary endosymbiotic origin and the host cell retains four different genomes (host nuclear, mitochondrial, plastid, and red algal nucleomorph). Here, we report a comparative analysis of plastid genomes from six representative cryptophyte genera. Four newly sequenced cryptophyte plastid genomes of Chroomonas mesostigmatica, Ch. placoidea, Cryptomonas curvata, and Storeatula sp. CCMP1868 share a number of features including synteny and gene content with the previously sequenced genomes of Cryptomonas paramecium, Rhodomonas salina, Teleaulax amphioxeia, and Guillardia theta. Our analysis of these plastid genomes reveals examples of gene loss and intron insertion. In particular, the chlB/chlL/chlN genes, which encode light-independent (dark active) protochlorophyllide oxidoreductase (LIPOR) proteins have undergone recent gene loss and pseudogenization in cryptophytes. Comparison of phylogenetic trees based on plastid and nuclear genome data sets show the introduction, via secondary endosymbiosis, of a red algal derived plastid in a lineage of chlorophyll-c containing algae. This event was followed by additional rounds of eukaryotic endosymbioses that spread the red lineage plastid to diverse groups such as haptophytes and stramenopiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".