MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904989663 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0098

Minimalist barcodes for sponges: a case study classifying African freshwater Spongillida

2018· article· en· W2904989663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dirk Erpenbeck, M. Steiner, Astrid Schuster, Martin J. Genner, Renata Manconi, Roberto Pronzato, Bernhard Ruthensteiner, Didier Van den Spiegel, Rob W. M. van Soest, Gert Wörheide

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsSpongeBiologyDNA barcodingTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyEcologyEvolutionary biologySpecies complexBiodiversityHolotypePaleontologyPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

African sponges, particularly freshwater sponges, are understudied relative to demosponges in most other geographical regions. Freshwater sponges (Spongillida) likely share a common ancestor; however, their evolutionary history, particularly during their radiation into endemic and allegedly cosmopolitan groups, is unclear. Freshwater sponges of at least 58 species of 17 genera and four families are described from Central and Eastern Africa, but the diversity is underestimated due to limited distinguishable morphological features. The discovery of additional cryptic species is very likely with the use of molecular techniques such as DNA barcoding. The Royal Museum of Central Africa (MRAC, Tervuren, Belgium) hosts one of the largest collections of (Central) African freshwater sponge type material. Type specimens in theory constitute ideal targets for molecular taxonomy; however, the success is frequently hampered by DNA degradation and deamination, which are a consequence of suboptimal preservation techniques. Therefore, we genotyped African demosponge holotype material of the MRAC with specific short primers suitable for degenerated tissue and compare the results with the current, morphology-based classification. Our results demonstrate the utility of minimalistic barcodes for identification of sponges, potentially enabling efficient identification of individuals in taxonomic or metabarcoding studies, and highlight inconsistencies in the current freshwater sponge classification.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207