Validating the Genus <i>Pocheina</i> (Acrasidae, Heterolobosea, Discoba) Leads to the Recognition of Three Major Lineages Within Acrasidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pocheina and Acrasis are two genera of heterolobosean sorocarpic amoebae within Acrasidae that have historically been considered close relatives. The two genera were differentiated based on their differing fruiting body morphologies. The validity of this taxonomic distinction was challenged when a SSU rRNA phylogenetic study placed an isolate morphologically identified as "Pocheina" rosea within a clade of Acrasis rosea isolates. The authors speculated that pocheinoid fruiting body morphology might be the result of aberrant Ac. rosea fruiting body development, which, if true, would nullify this taxonomic distinction between genera. To clarify Acrasidae systematics, we analyzed SSU rRNA and ITS region sequences from multiple isolates of Pocheina, Acrasis, and Allovahlkampfia generated by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and transcriptomics. We demonstrate that the initial SSU sequence attributed to "P. rosea" originated from an Ac. rosea DNA contamination in its amplification reaction. Our analyses, based on morphology, SSU and 5.8S rRNA gene phylogenies, as well as comparative analyses of ITS1 and ITS2 sequences, resolve Acrasidae into three major lineages: Allovahlkampfia and the strongly supported clades comprising Pocheina and Acrasis. We confirm that the latter two genera can be identified by their fruiting body morphologies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".