Monophyly of Diverse Bigyromonadea and their Impact on Phylogenomic Relationships Within Stramenopiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stramenopiles are a diverse but relatively well-studied eukaryotic supergroup with considerable genomic information available (Sibbald and Archibald, 2017). Nevertheless, the relationships between major stramenopile subgroups remain unresolved, in part due to a lack of data from small nanoflagellates that make up a lot of the genetic diversity of the group. This is most obvious in Bigyromonadea, which is one of four major stramenopile subgroups but represented by a single transcriptome. To examine the diversity of Bigyromonadea and how the lack of data affects the tree, we generated transcriptomes from seven novel bigyromonada species described in this study: Develocauda condao , Develocanicus komovi , Develocanicus vyazemskyi , Cubaremonas variflagellatum , Pirsonia chemainus , Feodosia pseudopoda , and Koktebelia satura . Both maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogenomic trees based on a 247 gene-matrix recovered a monophyletic Bigyromonadea that includes two diverse subgroups, Developea and Pirsoniales, that were not previously related based on single gene trees. Maximum likelihood analyses show Bigyromonadea related to oomycetes, whereas Bayesian analyses and topology testing were inconclusive. We observed similarities between the novel bigyromonad species and motile zoospores of oomycetes in morphology and the ability to self- aggregate. Rare formation of pseudopods and fused cells were also observed, traits that are also found in members of labyrinthulomycetes, another osmotrophic stramenopiles. Furthermore, we report the first case of eukaryovory in the flagellated stages of Pirsoniales. These analyses reveal new diversity of Bigyromonadea, and altogether suggest their monophyly with oomycetes, collectively known as Pseudofungi, is the most likely topology of the stramenopile tree.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".