MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127539291 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msab041

Is the Dinoflagellate <i>Amoebophrya</i> Really Missing an mtDNA?

2021· article· en· W3127539291 on OpenAlexafffund
Ehsan Kayal, David Roy Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la RechercheInstitut Français de Bioinformatique
KeywordsBiologyDinoflagellateMitochondrial DNAEvolutionary biologyGeneticsComputational biologyGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a universal hallmark of aerobic eukaryotes. That is why the recent suggestion by John et al. (2019. An aerobic eukaryotic parasite with functional mitochondria that likely lacks a mitochondrial genome. Sci Adv. 5(4):eaav1110.) that the aerobic dinoflagellate Amoebophrya sp. strain AT5 (Syndiniales) lacks mtDNA was so remarkable. Here, by reanalyzing recently published genomic and transcriptomic data from three Amoebophrya strains, we provide evidence of a cryptic, highly reduced mtDNA in this clade. More work is needed before one can definitively say if Amoebophrya has or does not have an mtDNA, but for now, the data are pointing toward the existence of one. Ultimately, we urge caution when basing supposedly absent genomic features on single line evidences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207