Comparative plastome and mitogenome analyses indicate that the marine prasinophyte green algae <i>Pycnococcus provasolii</i> and <i>Pseudoscourfieldia marina</i> (Pseudoscourfieldiophyceae class nov., Chlorophyta) represent morphotypes of the same species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marine prasinophyte green algae Pycnococcus provasolii and Pseudoscourfieldia marina represent the only extant genera and known species of the Pycnococcaceae. However, their taxonomic status needs to be reassessed, owing to the very close relationship inferred from previous sequence comparisons of individual genes. Although Py. provasolii and Ps. marina are morphologically different, their plastid rbcL and nuclear small subunit rRNA genes were observed to be nearly or entirely identical in sequence, thus leading to the hypothesis that they represent distinct growth forms or alternate life-cycle stages of the same organism. To evaluate this hypothesis, we used organelle genomes as molecular markers. The plastome and mitogenome of Ps. marina UIO 007 were sequenced and compared with those available for two isolates of Py. provasolii (CCMP 1203 and CCAP 190/2). The Ps. marina organelle genomes proved to be almost identical in size and had the same gene content and gene order as their Py. provasolii counterparts. Single nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions were localized using genome-scale sequence alignments. Over 99.70% sequence identities were observed in all pairwise comparisons of plastomes and mitogenomes. Alignments of both organelle genomes revealed that Ps. marina UIO 007 is closer to Py. provasolii CCAP 190/2 than are the two Py. provasolii strains to one another. Therefore, our results are not consistent with the placement of Ps. marina and Py. provasolii strains into distinct genera. We propose a taxonomic revision of the Pycnococcaceae and the erection of a new class of Chlorophyta, the Pseudoscourfieldiophyceae.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".