Broadly sampled orthologous groups of eukaryotic proteins for the phylogenetic study of plastid-bearing lineages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Identifying orthology relationships among sequences is essential to understand evolution, diversity of life and ancestry among organisms. To build alignments of orthologous sequences, phylogenomic pipelines often start with all-vs-all similarity searches, followed by a clustering step. For the protein clusters (orthogroups) to be as accurate as possible, proteomes of good quality are needed. Here, our objective is to assemble a data set especially suited for the phylogenomic study of algae and formerly photosynthetic eukaryotes, which implies the proper integration of organellar data, to enable distinguishing between several copies of one gene (paralogs), taking into account their cellular compartment, if necessary. DATA DESCRIPTION: We submitted 73 top-quality and taxonomically diverse proteomes to OrthoFinder. We obtained 47,266 orthogroups and identified 11,775 orthogroups with at least two algae. Whenever possible, sequences were functionally annotated with eggNOG and tagged after their genomic and target compartment(s). Then we aligned and computed phylogenetic trees for the orthogroups with IQ-TREE. Finally, these trees were further processed by identifying and pruning the subtrees exclusively composed of plastid-bearing organisms to yield a set of 31,784 clans suitable for studying photosynthetic organism genome evolution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".