Increasing 28 mitogenomes of Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Plecoptera support the Chiastomyaria hypothesis with three different outgroup combinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phylogenetic relationships of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) and Ephemeroptera (mayflies) remain unresolved. Different researchers have supported one of three hypotheses (Palaeoptera, Chiastomyaria or Metapterygota) based on data from different morphological characters and molecular markers, sometimes even re-assessing the same transcriptomes or mitochondrial genomes. The appropriate choice of outgroups and more taxon sampling is thought to eliminate artificial phylogenetic relationships and obtain an accurate phylogeny. Hence, in the current study, we sequenced 28 mt genomes from Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Plecoptera to further investigate phylogenetic relationships, the probability of each of the three hypotheses, and to examine mt gene arrangements in these species. We selected three different combinations of outgroups to analyze how outgroup choice affected the phylogenetic relationships of Odonata and Ephemeroptera. METHODS: Mitochondrial genomes from 28 species of mayflies, dragonflies, damselflies and stoneflies were sequenced. We used Bayesian inference (BI) and Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses for each dataset to reconstruct an accurate phylogeny of these winged insect orders. The effect of outgroup choice was assessed by separate analyses using three outgroups combinations: (a) four bristletails and three silverfish as outgroups, (b) five bristletails and three silverfish as outgroups, or (c) five diplurans as outgroups. RESULTS: genes in Ephemerellidae can be explained through the recombination and tandem duplication-random loss (TDRL) model. Our phylogenetic analysis strongly supported the Chiastomyaria hypothesis in three different outgroup combinations in BI analyses. The results also show that suitable outgroups are very important to determining phylogenetic relationships in the rapid evolution of insects especially among Ephemeroptera and Odonata. The mt genome is a suitable marker to investigate the phylogeny of inter-order and inter-family relationships of insects but outgroup choice is very important for deriving these relationships among winged insects. Hence, we must carefully choose the correct outgroup in order to discuss the relationships of Ephemeroptera and Odonata.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".