MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249234528 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27183

Characteristics of the complete mitochondrial genome of <i>Suhpalacsa longialata </i>(Neuroptera, Ascalaphidae) and its phylogenetic implications

2018· preprint· en· W4249234528 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyan Gao, Yin-Yin Cai, Dan‐Na Yu, Kenneth B. Storey, Jia‐Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropteraBiologyMitochondrial DNATransfer RNAGeneticsPhylogenetic treeGeneGenomeEvolutionary biologyRNABotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The owlflies (Family Ascalaphidae) belong to the Neuroptera but are often mistaken as dragonflies because of morphological characters. To date, only three mitochondrial genomes of Ascalaphidae, namely Libelloides macaronius ; Ascaloptynx appendiculatus ; Ascalohybris subjacens , are published in GenBank, meaning that they are greatly under-represented in comparison with the 430 described species reported in this family. In this study, we sequenced and described the complete mitochondrial genome of Suhpalacsalongialata (Neuroptera, Ascalaphidae). The total length of the S.longialata mitogenome was 15,911 bp, which is the longest known to date among the available family members of Ascalaphidae. However, the size of each gene was similar to the other three Ascalaphidae species. The S. longialata mitogenome included a transposition of tRNA Cys and tRNA Trp genes and formed an unusual gene arrangement tRNA Cys -tRNA Trp -tRNA Tyr (CWY). It is likely that the transposition occurred by a duplication of both genes followed by random loss of partial duplicated genes. The nucleotide composition of the S.longialata mitogenome was as follows: A=41.0%, T=33.8%, C=15.5%, G=9.7%. Both BI and ML analyse strongly supported S. longialata as a sister clade to ( Ascalohybris subjacens + L. macaronius ), and indicated that Ascalaphidae is not monophyletic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207