MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094049860 · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19200-2

Hikarchaeia demonstrate an intermediate stage in the methanogen-to-halophile transition

2020· article· en· W3094049860 on OpenAlexaff
Joran Martijn, Max Emil Schön, Anders E. Lind, Julian Vosseberg, Tom A. Williams, Anja Spang, Thijs J. G. Ettema

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersUppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational ScienceVetenskapsrådetUppsala UniversitetHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekStiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning
KeywordsHaloarchaeaMethanogenHalophileArchaeaBiologyGenomeGeneGeneticsEvolutionary biologyMethanogenesisBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Halobacteria (henceforth: Haloarchaea) are predominantly aerobic halophiles that are thought to have evolved from anaerobic methanogens. This remarkable transformation most likely involved an extensive influx of bacterial genes. Whether it entailed a single massive transfer event or a gradual stream of transfers remains a matter of debate. To address this, genomes that descend from methanogen-to-halophile intermediates are necessary. Here, we present five such near-complete genomes of Marine Group IV archaea (Hikarchaeia), the closest known relatives of Haloarchaea. Their inclusion in gene tree-aware ancestral reconstructions reveals an intermediate stage that had already lost a large number of genes, including nearly all of those involved in methanogenesis and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway. In contrast, the last Haloarchaea common ancestor gained a large number of genes and expanded its aerobic respiration and salt/UV resistance gene repertoire. Our results suggest that complex and gradual patterns of gain and loss shaped the methanogen-to-halophile transition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207