The Mitogenomes of Ophiostoma minus and Ophiostoma piliferum and Comparisons With Other Members of the Ophiostomatales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi assigned to the Ophiostomatales are of economic concern as many are blue-stain fungi and some are plant pathogens. The mitogenomes of two blue-stain fungi, Ophiostoma minus and Ophiostoma piliferum , were sequenced and compared with currently available mitogenomes for other members of the Ophiostomatales. Species representing various genera within the Ophiostomatales have been examined for gene content, gene order, phylogenetic relationships, and the distribution of mobile elements. Gene synteny is conserved among the Ophiostomatales but some members were missing the atp9 gene. A genome wide intron landscape has been prepared to demonstrate the distribution of the mobile genetic elements (group I and II introns and homing endonucleases) and to provide insight into the evolutionary dynamics of introns among members of this group of fungi. Examples of complex introns or nested introns composed of two or three intron modules have been observed in some species. The size variation among the mitogenomes (from 23.7 kb to about 150 kb) is mostly due to the presence and absence of introns. Members of the genus Sporothrix sensu stricto appear to have the smallest mitogenomes due to loss of introns. The taxonomy of the Ophiostomatales has recently undergone considerable revisions; however, some lineages remain unresolved. The data showed that genera such as Raffaelea appear to be polyphyletic and the separation of Sporothrix sensu stricto from Ophiostoma is justified.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".