Comparative Plastid Genomics of Green-Colored Dinoflagellates Unveils Parallel Genome Compaction and RNA Editing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinoflagellates possess plastids that are diverse in both pigmentation and evolutionary background. One of the plastid types found in dinoflagellates is pigmented with chlorophylls a and b (Chl a + b) and originated from the endosymbionts belonging to a small group of green algae, Pedinophyceae. The Chl a + b-containing plastids have been found in three distantly related dinoflagellates Lepidodinium spp., strain MGD, and strain TGD, and were proposed to be derived from separate partnerships between a dinoflagellate (host) and a pedinophycean green alga (endosymbiont). Prior to this study, a plastid genome sequence was only available for L. chlorophorum, which was reported to bear the features that were not found in that of the pedinophycean green alga Pedinomonas minor, a putative close relative of the endosymbiont that gave rise to the current Chl a + b-containing plastid. In this study, we sequenced the plastid genomes of strains MGD and TGD to compare with those of L. chlorophorum as well as pedinophycean green algae. The mapping of the RNA-seq reads on the corresponding plastid genome identified RNA editing on plastid gene transcripts in the three dinoflagellates. Further, the comparative plastid genomics revealed that the plastid genomes of the three dinoflagellates achieved several features, which are not found in or much less obvious than the pedinophycean plastid genomes determined to date, in parallel.
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 | 0.000 | 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".