The mitogenomes of Leptographium aureum, Leptographium sp., and Grosmannia fruticeta: expansion by introns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Many members of the Ophiostomatales are of economic importance as they are bark-beetle associates and causative agents for blue stain on timber and in some instances contribute towards tree mortality. The taxonomy of these fungi has been challenging due to the convergent evolution of many traits associated with insect dispersal and a limited number of morphological characters that happen to be highly pleomorphic. This study examines the mitochondrial genomes for three members of Leptographium sensu lato [Leptographium aureum (also known as Grosmannia aurea), Grosmannia fruticeta (also known as Leptographium fruticetum), and Leptographium sp. WIN(M)1376)]. Methods Illumina sequencing combined with gene and intron annotations and phylogenetic analysis were performed. Results Sequence analysis showed that gene content and gene synteny are conserved but mitochondrial genome sizes were variable: G. fruticeta at 63,821 bp, Leptographium sp. WIN(M)1376 at 81,823 bp and L. aureum at 104,547 bp. The variation in size is due to the number of introns and intron-associated open reading frames. Phylogenetic analysis of currently available mitochondrial genomes for members of the Ophiostomatales supports currently accepted generic arrangements within this order and specifically supports the separation of members with Leptographium-like conidiophores into two genera, with L. aureum grouping with Leptographium and G. fruticeta aligning with Grosmannia. Discussion Mitochondrial genomes are promising sequences for resolving evolutionary relationships within the Ophiostomatales.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".