Comparing complete organelle genomes of holoparasitic Christisonia kwangtungensis (Orabanchaceae) with its close relatives: how different are they?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orobanchaceae is the only flowering plant family with species from free-living nonparasite, hemi-parasite to holoparasite, making it an ideal system for studying the evolution of parasitism. However, both plastid and mitochondrial genome have been sequenced in only few parasitic species in Orobanchaceae. Therefore, further comparative study is wanted to investigate the impact of holoparasitism on organelle genomes evolution between close relatives. Here, we sequenced organelle genomes and transcriptome of holoparasitic Christisonia kwangtungensis and compared it with its closely related groups to analyze similarities and differences in adaption strategies to the holoparasitic lifestyle. RESULTS: The plastid genome of C. kwangtungensis has undergone extensive pseudogenization and gene loss, but its reduction pattern is different from that of Aeginetia indica, the close relative of C. kwangtungensis. Similarly, the gene expression detected in the photosynthetic pathway of these two genera is different. In Orobanchaceae, holoparasites in Buchnereae have more plastid gene loss than Rhinantheae, which reflects their longer history of holoparasitism. Distinct from severe degradation of the plastome, protein-coding genes in the mitochondrial genome of C. kwangtungensis are relatively conserved. Interestingly, besides intracellularly transferred genes which are still retained in its plastid genome, we also found several horizontally transferred genes of plastid origin from diverse donors other than their current hosts in the mitochondrial genome, which probably indicate historical hosts. CONCLUSION: Even though C. kwangtungensis and A. indica are closely related and share severe degradation of plastome, they adapt organelle genomes to the parasitic lifestyle in different ways. The difference between their gene loss and gene expression shows they ultimately lost photosynthetic genes but through different pathways. Our study exemplifies how parasites part company after achieving holoparasitism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".