Single-Cell Transcriptomics of <i>Abedinium</i> Reveals a New Early-Branching Dinoflagellate Lineage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinoflagellates possess many cellular characteristics with unresolved evolutionary histories. These include nuclei with greatly expanded genomes and chromatin packaged using histone-like proteins and dinoflagellate-viral nucleoproteins instead of histones, highly reduced mitochondrial genomes with extensive RNA editing, a mix of photosynthetic and cryptic secondary plastids, and tertiary plastids. Resolving the evolutionary origin of these traits requires understanding their ancestral states and early intermediates. Several early-branching dinoflagellate lineages are good candidates for such reconstruction, however these cells tend to be delicate and environmentally sparse, complicating such analyses. Here, we employ transcriptome sequencing from manually isolated and microscopically documented cells to resolve the placement of two cells of one such genus, Abedinium, collected by remotely operated vehicle in deep waters off the coast of Monterey Bay, CA. One cell corresponds to the only described species, Abedinium dasypus, whereas the second cell is distinct and formally described as Abedinium folium, sp. nov. Abedinium has classically been assigned to the early-branching dinoflagellate subgroup Noctilucales, which is weakly supported by phylogenetic analyses of small subunit ribosomal RNA, the single characterized gene from any member of the order. However, an analysis based on 221 proteins from the transcriptome places Abedinium as a distinct lineage, separate from and basal to Noctilucales and the rest of the core dinoflagellates. The transcriptome also contains evidence of a cryptic plastid functioning in the biosynthesis of isoprenoids, iron-sulfur clusters, and heme, a mitochondrial genome with all three expected protein-coding genes (cob, cox1, and cox3), and the presence of some but not all dinoflagellate-specific chromatin packaging proteins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".