A broad survey of choanoflagellates revises the evolutionary history of the Shaker family of voltage-gated K <sup>+</sup> channels in animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Shaker family of voltage-gated K + channels has been thought of as an animal-specific ion channel family that diversified in concert with nervous systems. It comprises four functionally independent gene subfamilies (Kv1-4) that encode diverse neuronal K + currents. Comparison of animal genomes predicts that only the Kv1 subfamily was present in the animal common ancestor. Here, we show that some choanoflagellates, the closest protozoan sister lineage to animals, also have Shaker family K + channels. Choanoflagellate Shaker family channels are surprisingly most closely related to the animal Kv2-4 subfamilies which were believed to have evolved only after the divergence of ctenophores and sponges from cnidarians and bilaterians. Structural modeling predicts that the choanoflagellate channels share a T1 Zn 2+ binding site with Kv2-4 channels that is absent in Kv1 channels. We functionally expressed three Shakers from Salpingoeca helianthica (SheliKvT1.1-3) in Xenopus oocytes. SheliKvT1.1-3 function only in two heteromultimeric combinations (SheliKvT1.1/1.2 and SheliKvT1.1/1.3) and encode fast N-type inactivating K + channels with distinct voltage dependence that are most similar to the widespread animal Kv1-encoded A-type Shakers. Structural modeling of the T1 assembly domain supports a preference for heteromeric assembly in a 2:2 stoichiometry. These results push the origin of the Shaker family back into a common ancestor of metazoans and choanoflagellates. They also suggest that the animal common ancestor had at least two distinct molecular lineages of Shaker channels, a Kv1 subfamily lineage predicted from comparison of animal genomes and a Kv2-4 lineage predicted from comparison of animals and choanoflagellates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".