A site-and-branch-heterogeneous model on an expanded dataset favor mitochondria as sister to known Alphaproteobacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Determining the phylogenetic origin of mitochondria is key to understanding the ancestral mitochondrial symbiosis and its role in eukaryogenesis. However, the precise evolutionary relationship between mitochondria and their closest bacterial relatives remains hotly debated. The reasons include pervasive phylogenetic artefacts, as well as limited protein and taxon sampling. Here, we developed a new model of protein evolution that accommodates both across-site and across-branch compositional heterogeneity. We applied this site-and-branch-heterogeneous model (MAM60 + GFmix) to a considerably expanded dataset that comprises 108 mitochondrial proteins of alphaproteobacterial origin, and novel metagenome-assembled genomes from microbial mats, microbialites, and sediments. The MAM60 + GFmix model fits the data much better and agrees with analyses of compositionally homogenized datasets with conventional site-heterogenous models. The consilience of evidence thus suggests that mitochondria is sister to the Alphaproteobacteria to the exclusion of MarineProteo1 and Magnetococcia. We also show that the ancestral presence of a crista-developing MICOS complex (a Mitofilin domain-containing Mic60) supports this relationship.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".