MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389894433 · doi:10.1111/jeu.13016

The function of the feeding groove of ‘typical excavate’ flagellates

2023· article· en· W4389894433 on OpenAlexaff
Sei Suzuki‐Tellier, Thomas Kiørboe, Alastair G. B. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondCarlsbergfondetVillum FondenSimons Foundation
KeywordsBiologyPredationEcologyIngestionCiliateZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phagotrophic flagellates are the main consumers of bacteria and picophytoplankton. Despite their ecological significance in the 'microbial loop', many of their predation mechanisms remain unclear. 'Typical excavates' bear a ventral groove, where prey is captured for ingestion. The consequences of feeding through a 'semi-rigid' furrow on the prey size range have not been explored. An unidentified moving element called 'the wave' that sweeps along the bottom of the groove toward the site of phagocytosis has been observed in a few species; its function is unclear. We investigated the presence, behavior, and function of the wave in four species from the three excavate clades (Discoba, Metamonada, and Malawimonadida) and found it present in all studied cases, suggesting the potential homology of this feature across all three groups. The wave displayed a species-specific behavior and was crucial for phagocytosis. The morphology of the feeding groove had an upper-prey size limit for successful prey captures, but smaller particles were not constrained. Additionally, the ingestion efficiencies were species dependent. By jointly studying these feeding traits, we speculate on adaptations to differences in food availability to better understand their ecological functions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eukaryotic MicrobiologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207