Magnetosome magnetite biomineralization in a flagellated protist: evidence for an early evolutionary origin for magnetoreception in eukaryotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The most well‐recognized magnetoreception behaviour is that of the magnetotactic bacteria (MTB), which synthesize membrane‐bounded magnetic nanocrystals called magnetosomes via a biologically controlled process. The magnetic minerals identified in prokaryotic magnetosomes are magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ) and greigite (Fe 3 S 4 ). Magnetosome crystals, regardless of composition, have consistent, species‐specific morphologies and single‐domain size range. Because of these features, magnetosome magnetite crystals possess specific properties in comparison to abiotic, chemically synthesized magnetite. Despite numerous discoveries regarding MTB phylogeny over the last decades, this diversity is still considered underestimated. Characterization of magnetotactic microorganisms is important as it might provide insights into the origin and establishment of magnetoreception in general, including eukaryotes. Here, we describe the magnetotactic behaviour and characterize the magnetosomes from a flagellated protist using culture‐independent methods. Results strongly suggest that, unlike previously described magnetotactic protists, this flagellate is capable of biomineralizing its own anisotropic magnetite magnetosomes, which are aligned in complex aggregations of multiple chains within the cell. This organism has a similar response to magnetic field inversions as MTB. Therefore, this eukaryotic species might represent an early origin of magnetoreception based on magnetite biomineralization. It should add to the definition of parameters and criteria to classify biogenic magnetite in the fossil record.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".