Phylogenetic Dissection Provides Insights into the Incongruity in the Tree of Archaeplastida Between the Analyses of Nucleus- and Plastid-Encoded Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeplastida is defined as a taxonomic assemblage comprising three sub-clades, namely Chloroplastida, Glaucophyta, and Rhodophyta plus two non-photosynthetic lineages sister to Rhodophyta (the latter three lineages collectively termed “Rhodozoa” here). The members of Archaeplastida are the descendants of the eukaryote that took up and transformed a cyanobacterial endosymbiont into a primary plastid. Recent phylogenetic analyses of multiple proteins (phylogenomic analyses) stably recovered the monophyly of Archaeplastida, but uncertainty remains in the relationship among the three sub-clades in this assemblage. The phylogenomic analyses of nucleus-encoded proteins (nuc-proteins) grouped Chloroplastida and Glaucophyta together, excluding Rhodozoa in the Archaeplastida clade, albeit the union of Chloroplastida and Rhodophyta was often inferred from the phylogenomic analyses of plastid-encoded proteins (pld-proteins). In this study, we challenged the previously recognized but as-yet-explicitly addressed issue in the tree of Archaeplastida (ToA). The detailed analyses of the nuc-protein and pld-protein supermatrices revealed that taxon sampling can invoke different types of phylogenetic artifacts into the inferences from both supermatrices examined here. In the end, we propose a working hypothesis for the ToA and provide future perspectives toward resolving the ToA.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".