Comparative plastomes of species from Phrymaceae and Mazaceae: insights into adaptive evolution, codon usage bias, and phylogenetic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogeny of the species from Phrymaceae and Mazaceae has undergone many adjustments and changes in recent years. Moreover, there is little plastome information on the Phrymaceae. In this study, we compared the plastomes of six species from the Phrymaceae and 10 species from the Mazaceae. The gene order, contents, and orientation of the 16 plastomes were found to be highly similar. A total of 13 highly variable regions were identified among the 16 species. An accelerated rate of substitution was found in the protein-coding genes, particularly cemA and matK. The combination of effective number of codons, parity rule 2, and neutrality plots revealed that the codon usage bias is affected by mutation and selection. The phylogenetic analysis strongly supported {Mazaceae [(Phrymaceae + Wightiaceae) + (Paulowniaceae + Orobanchaceae)]} relationships in the Lamiales. Our findings can provide useful information to analyze the phylogeny and molecular evolution within the Phrymaceae and Mazaceae.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".