MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189362170 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24396-y

Timing the evolution of antioxidant enzymes in cyanobacteria

2021· article· en· W3189362170 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne S. Boden, Kurt O. Konhauser, Leslie J. Robbins, Patricia Sánchez‐Baracaldo

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Alberta
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsCyanobacteriaPhototrophSuperoxide dismutaseBiologyReactive oxygen speciesPhotosynthesisOxidative stressBotanyBiochemistryGeneticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ancestors of cyanobacteria generated Earth's first biogenic molecular oxygen, but how they dealt with oxidative stress remains unconstrained. Here we investigate when superoxide dismutase enzymes (SODs) capable of removing superoxide free radicals evolved and estimate when Cyanobacteria originated. Our Bayesian molecular clocks, calibrated with microfossils, predict that stem Cyanobacteria arose 3300-3600 million years ago. Shortly afterwards, we find phylogenetic evidence that ancestral cyanobacteria used SODs with copper and zinc cofactors (CuZnSOD) during the Archaean. By the Paleoproterozoic, they became genetically capable of using iron, nickel, and manganese as cofactors (FeSOD, NiSOD, and MnSOD respectively). The evolution of NiSOD is particularly intriguing because it corresponds with cyanobacteria's invasion of the open ocean. Our analyses of metalloenzymes dealing with reactive oxygen species (ROS) now demonstrate that marine geochemical records alone may not predict patterns of metal usage by phototrophs from freshwater and terrestrial habitats.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations141
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207