Comparative Mitogenome of Phylogenetic Relationships and Divergence Time Analysis within Potamanthidae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potamanthidae belongs to the superfamily Ephemeroidea but has no complete mt genome released in the NCBI (except for two unchecked and one partial mt genome). Since the sister clade to Potamanthidae has always been controversial, we sequenced seven mt genomes of Potamanthidae (two species from Rhoenanthus and five species from Potamanthus) in order to rebuild the phylogenetic relationships of Potamanthidae in this study. The divergence time of Potamanthidae was also investigated by utilizing five fossil calibration points because of the indeterminate origin time. In addition, because Rhoenanthus coreanus and Potamanthus luteus are always in low-temperature environments, we aimed to explore whether these two species were under positive selection at the mt genome level. Amongst the 13 PCGs, CGA was used as the start codon in COX1, whereas other genes conformed to initiating with an ATN start codon. From this analysis, UUA (L), AUU (I), and UUU (F) had the highest usage. Furthermore, the DHU arm was absent in the secondary structure of S1 in all species. By combining the 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs, we reconstructed the phylogenetic relationship of Potamanthidae within Ephemeroptera. The monophyly of Potamanthidae and the monophyly of Rhoenanthus and Potamanthus were supported in the results. The phylogenetic relationship of Potamanthidae + (Ephemeridae + Polymitarcyidae) was also recovered with a high prior probability. The divergence times of Potamanthidae were traced to be 90.44 Mya (95% HPD, 62.80–121.74 Mya), and the divergence times of Rhoenanthus and Potamanthus originated at approximately 64.77 Mya (95% HPD, 43.82–88.68 Mya), thus belonging to the late Pliocene Epoch or early Miocene Epoch. In addition, the data indicated that R. coreanus was under negative selection and that ATP8 and ND2 in Potamanthidae had a high evolutionary rate.
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 | 0.002 | 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".