MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883686859 · doi:10.1101/377234

Clonal evolution and genome stability in a 2,500-year-old fungal individual

2018· preprint· en· W2883686859 on OpenAlexafffund
James B. Anderson, Johann N. Bruhn, Dahlia Kasimer, Hao Wang, Nicolas Rodrigue, Myron L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArmillariaBiologyMutation rateGeneticsMutationEvolutionary biologyDemographyBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the late 1980s, a genetic individual of the fungus Armillaria gallica that extended over at least 37 hectares of forest floor and encompassed hundreds of tree root systems was discovered on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Based on observed growth rates, the individual was estimated to be at least 1500 years old with a mass of more than 10 5 kg. Nearly three decades on, we returned to the site of individual for new sampling. We report here that the same genetic individual of A. gallica is still alive on its original site, but we estimated that it is older and larger than originally estimated, at least 2,500 years and 4 × 10 5 kg, respectively. We also show that mutation has occurred within the somatic cells of the individual, reflecting its historical pattern of growth from a single point. The overall rate of mutation, however, was extremely low. The large individual of A. gallica has been remarkably resistant to genomic change as it has persisted in place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207