MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986509451 · doi:10.7554/elife.06974.033

Author response: Chromerid genomes reveal the evolutionary path from photosynthetic algae to obligate intracellular parasites

2015· peer-review· en· W2986509451 on OpenAlexaff
Yong Woo, Hifzur Rahman Ansari, Thomas D. Otto, Christen M. Klinger, Martin Kolísko, Jan Michálek, Alka Saxena, Dhanasekaran Shanmugam, Annageldi Tayyrov, Alaguraj Veluchamy, Shahjahan Ali, Axel Bernal, Javier del Campo, Jaromír Cihlář, Pavel Flegontov, Sebastian G. Gornik, Eva Hajdušková, Aleš Horák, Jan Janouškovec, Fred D. Mast, Diego Miranda‐Saavedra, Tobias Mourier, Raeece Naeem, Mridul Nair, Aswini K. Panigrahi, Neil D. Rawlings, Eriko Padron-Regalado, Abhinay Ramaprasad, Nadira Samad, Aleš Tomčala, Jon G. Wilkes, Daniel E. Neafsey, Christian Doerig, Chris Bowler, Patrick J. Keeling, David S. Roos, Joel B. Dacks, Thomas J. Templeton, Ross F. Waller, Julius Lukeš, Miroslav Obornı́k, Arnab Pain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyObligate parasiteObligatePhylumGenomeEvolutionary biologyMost recent common ancestorFlagellumAdaptation (eye)PhylogeneticsGeneGeneticsHost (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-celled parasites cause many severe diseases in humans and animals. The apicomplexans form probably the most successful group of these parasites and include the parasites that cause malaria. Apicomplexans infect a broad range of hosts, including humans, reptiles, birds, and insects, and often have complicated life cycles. For example, the malaria-causing parasites spread by moving from humans to female mosquitoes and then back to humans. Despite significant differences amongst apicomplexans, these single-celled parasites also share a number of features that are not seen in other living species. How and when these features arose remains unclear. It is known from previous work that apicomplexans are closely related to single-celled algae. But unlike apicomplexans, which depend on a host animal to survive, these algae live freely in their environment, often in close association with corals. Woo et al. have now sequenced the genomes of two photosynthetic algae that are thought to be close living relatives of the apicomplexans. These genomes were then compared to each other and to the genomes of other algae and apicomplexans. These comparisons reconfirmed that the two algae that were studied were close relatives of the apicomplexans. Further analyses suggested that thousands of genes were lost as an ancient free-living algae evolved into the apicomplexan ancestor, and further losses occurred as these early parasites evolved into modern species. The lost genes were typically those that are important for free-living organisms, but are either a hindrance to, or not needed in, a parasitic lifestyle. Some of the ancestor's genes, especially those that coded for the building blocks of flagella (structures which free-living algae use to move around), were repurposed in ways that helped the apicomplexans to invade their hosts. Understanding this repurposing process in greater detail will help to identify key molecules in these deadly parasites that could be targeted by drug treatments. It will also offer answers to one of the most fascinating questions in evolutionary biology: how parasites have evolved from free-living organisms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3130.130

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207