Extremely divergent <scp>COI</scp> sequences within an amphipod species complex: A possible role for endosymbionts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Some heritable endosymbionts can affect host mtDNA evolution in various ways. Amphipods host diverse endosymbionts, but whether their mtDNA has been influenced by these endosymbionts has yet to be considered. Here, we investigated the role of endosymbionts (microsporidians and Rickettsia) in explaining highly divergent COI sequences in Paracalliope fluviatilis species complex, the most common freshwater amphipods in New Zealand. We first contrasted phylogeographic patterns using COI, ITS, and 28S sequences. While molecular species delimitation methods based on 28S sequences supported 3–4 potential species (N, C, SA, and SB) among freshwater lineages, COI sequences supported 17–27 putative species reflecting high inter‐population divergence. The deep divergence between NC and S lineages (~20%; 28S) and the substitution saturation on the 3rd codon position of COI detected even within one lineage (SA) indicate a very high level of morphological stasis. Interestingly, individuals infected and uninfected by Rickettsia comprised divergent COI lineages in one of four populations tested, suggesting a potential influence of endosymbionts in mtDNA patterns. We propose several plausible explanations for divergent COI lineages, although they would need further testing with multiple lines of evidence. Lastly, due to common morphological stasis and the presence of endosymbionts, phylogeographic patterns of amphipods based on mtDNA should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".