Whole genome sequencing and phylogenomic analysis show support for the splitting of genus <i>Pythium</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Pythium (nom. cons.) sensu lato (s.l.) is composed of many important species of plant pathogens. Early molecular phylogenetic studies suggested paraphyly of Pythium, which led to a formal proposal by Uzuhashi and colleagues in 2010 to split the genus into Pythium sensu stricto (s.s.), Elongisporangium, Globisporangium, Ovatisporangium (= Phytopythium), and Pilasporangium using morphological characters and phylogenies of the mt cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 (cox2) and D1–D2 domains of nuc 28S rDNA. Although the split was fairly justified by the delineating morphological characters, there were weaknesses in the molecular analyses, which created reluctance in the scientific community to adopt these new genera for the description of new species. In this study, this issue was addressed using phylogenomics. Whole genomes of 109 strains of Pythium and close relatives were sequenced, assembled, and annotated. These data were combined with 10 genomes sequenced in previous studies. Phylogenomic analyses were performed with 148 single-copy genes represented in at least 90% of the taxa in the data set. The results showed support for the division of Pythium s.l. The status of alternative generic names that have been used for species of Pythium in the past (e.g., Artotrogus, Cystosiphon, Eupythium, Nematosporangium, Rheosporangium, Sphaerosporangium) was investigated. Based on our molecular analyses and review of the Pythium generic concepts, we urge the scientific community to adopt the generic names Pythium, Elongisporangium, Globisporangium, and their concepts as proposed by Uzuhashi and colleagues in 2010 in their work going forward. In order to consolidate the taxonomy of these genera, some of the recently described Pythium spp. are transferred to Elongisporangium and Globisporangium.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".