Species validity of five common northern/Arctic spring bloom diatoms: a combined morphological and molecular study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevant taxonomical morphological characters of five common spring bloom centric diatoms, preliminary identified as Attheya longicornis Crawford & Gardner, Chaetoceros furcellatus Yendo, Porosira glacialis Jørgensen, Coscinodiscus sp. and Skeletonema marinoi Sarno & Zingone were observed and described using light and scanning electron microscope. \nFurther, samples of cultured diatoms were sent to the Canadian centre of DNA Barcoding (CCDB) for DNA extraction, PCR and sequencing. Out of five submitted replicates for each species, CCDB gained five sequences of Attheya strain nr. 20.2, two sequences of Chaetoceros strain nr. 61 and one sequence of Porosira strain nr. 201 based on marker of rbcL gene from chloroplast. One sequence of Skeletonema strain nr. 204 resulted from sequencing of 16S rRNA gene. Sequencing was not successful for Coscinodiscus strain nr. 203.\n\nAccording to results from the morphologic examination, with some uncertainty, it is possible to conclude that strain nr. 20.2 is Attheya longicornis. Chaetoceros strain nr. 61 is estimated to be Ch. furcellatus, but it is not possible to identify certainly due to missing SEM images of spores and missing appropriate phylogenetic data. Porosira strain nr. 201 is Porosira glacialis, mainly based on morphologic description, with indication from molecular survey. Coscinodiscus strain nr. 203 is Coscinodiscus concinnus and Skeletonema strain nr. 204 is Skeletonema marinoi. Both last named species were identified only according to morphologic features.\n\nUsing reference DNA sequences available in the GenBank, it was possible to demonstrate that rbcL gene from chloroplast is a promising marker for DNA barcoding of diatoms, as many species were found in strongly supported monophylectic groups on the rbcL phylogeny, necessarily to remind that the periodic reconciliation of up to date scientific publications on diatom taxonomy is inevitable in order to perform proper taxonomic 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".