Regulated development of cannibalistic supergiant cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Virtually all paradigms in developmental biology apply to differentiating cells and tissues within multicellular animals and plants. However, unicellular eukaryotes, which must simultaneously perform all roles necessary for organismal function, also form complex and specialized structures, using processes that take place exclusively within the confines of a single cell. Here, we describe a ciliate ( Euplotes gigatrox sp. nov.) undergoing drastic morphological transformations within a genetically uniform population, the most spectacular being the appearance of “supergiants” that increase in size, change shape, and modify their locomotion and feeding behaviour to cannibalize clonal relatives. We explore supergiant formation from the perspective of life cycle, ecological strategy, and gene expression, demonstrating that supergiants are distinct, regulated, transcriptionally unique stages. These reversibly differentiated cells require both external and internal triggers to develop and have evolved regulatory loops to ensure coupling between environmental and physiological conditions. This system provides a blueprint for approaching both cell differentiation and functional ecology in unicellular organisms, which might open new avenues for the generalization and contextualization of known morphogenetic mechanisms, as well as the discovery of new ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".