Multigene phylogenies of<i>Ophiostoma clavigerum</i>and closely related species from bark beetle-attacked<i>Pinus</i>in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leptographium pyrinum, Leptographium terebrantis, Ophiostoma aureum, Ophiostoma clavigerum, and Ophiostoma robustum are very similar in morphology, host trees choice, and the way they are disseminated by bark beetles. Their phylogenetic relationships were clarified using rDNA and protein coding genes including actin, β-tubulin, and translation elongation factor-1α. Protein coding gene trees showed better resolution than the rDNA tree, which generated three clades: O. clavigerum, L. terebrantis/L. pyrinum, and O. robustum/O. aureum. A combined gene phylogenetic tree, which was supported by high bootstrap values, showed that O. aureum, L. pyrinum, O. robustum, and O. clavigerum each formed distinct clades while L. terebrantis was paraphyletic to O. clavigerum. The higher variability of the protein coding genes and the congruity in their phylogenetic results suggested that these genes may be better markers for identifying closely related species. These gene trees have also facilitated the description of the evolutionary relationships among these species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".