A MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY OF THE BANGIOPHYCIDAE (RHODOPHYTA) AND THE ORIGIN OF SECONDARY PLASTIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Müller, K1, Oliveira, M. C.2, Sheath, R. G.3, Yoon, H. S.4 & Bhattacharya, D.4 1Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1; 2Department of Botany, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, R. Matão, Travessa 14, N. 321, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, CEP 05508‐900; 3Department of Botany and Dean's Office, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1; 4Department of Biological Sciences and Interdepartmental Genetics Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA We sequenced the nuclear small subunit ribosomal DNA coding region from 20 members of the Bangiophycidae and from two members of the Florideophycidae to gain insights into red algal evolution. A combined alignment of plastid small subunit rDNA, rbcL, and psbA sequences were also studied to complement the understanding of bangiophyte phylogeny and to address red algal secondary symbiosis. Our results are consistent with a monophyletic origin of the Florideophycidae, which form a sister‐group to the Bangiales. Bangiales monophyly is strongly supported, although Porphyra is polyphyletic within Bangia. Bangiophycidae orders such as the Porphyridiales are distributed over three independent red algal lineages. The Compsopogonales sensu stricto, consisting of two freshwater families, Compsopogonaceae and Boldiaceae, forms a well‐supported monophyletic grouping. The single taxon within the Rhodochaetales, Rhodochaete parvula, is positioned within a cluster containing members of the Erythropeltidales. Analyses of plastid sequences show that the plastids of the heterokonts are most closely related to members of the Cyanidiales and are not directly related to cryptophyte and haptophyte plastids. Different data partitions support conflicting topologies regarding the positions of the cryptophytes and haptophytes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".