Revisiting Ceriantharian (Anthozoa) Mitochondrial Genomes: Casting Doubts about Their Structure and Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Stampar et al. (2019. Linear mitochondrial genome in Anthozoa (Cnidaria): a case study in. Sci Rep. 9(1):6094.) uncovered highly atypical mitochondrial genome structures in the cnidarian species Pachycerianthus magnus and Isarachnanthus nocturnus (Anthozoa, Ceriantharia). These two mitochondrial DNAs assembled as linear fragmented genomes, comprising eight and five chromosomes, respectively-architectures unlike any other anthozoan mitogenome described to date. What's more, they have cumulative lengths of 77.8 (P. magnus) and 80.9 kb (I. nocturnus), making them the largest animal mitochondrial DNAs on record, a finding which garnered significant attention by various news media. Here, I take a closer look at the work of Stampar et al. and question their key results. I provide evidence that the currently available mitogenome sequences for I. nocturnus and P. magnus, including their structures, sizes, and chromosome numbers, should be treated with caution. More work must be done on these genomes before one can say with any certainty that they are linear, fragmented, or the largest animal mitogenomes observed to date.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".