Phylogenomics shows unique traits in Noctilucales are derived rather than ancestral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinoflagellates are a diverse group of protists that possess many unique traits. These include (but are not limited to) expansive genomes packaged into permanently condensed chromosomes, photosynthetic or cryptic plastids acquired vertically or horizontally in serial endosymbioses, and a ruffle-like transverse flagellum attached along its length to the cell. When reconstructing character evolution, early branching lineages with unusual features that distinguish them from the rest of the group have proven useful for inferring ancestral states. The Noctilucales are one such lineage, possessing relaxed chromosomes in some life stages and a trailing, thread-like transverse flagellum. However, most of the cellular and molecular data for the entire group come from a single cultured species, Noctiluca scintillans, and because its phylogenetic position is unresolved, it remains unclear if these traits are ancestral or derived. Here, we use single cell transcriptomics to characterize three diverse Noctilucales genera: Spatulodinium, Kofoidinium, and a new lineage, Fabadinium gen. nov. We also provide transcriptomes for undescribed species in Amphidinium and Abediniales, critical taxa for clarifying the phylogenetic position of Noctilucales. Phylogenomic analyses suggest that the Noctilucales are sister to Amphidinium rather than an independent branch outside the core dinoflagellates. This topology is consistent with observations of shared characteristics between some members of Noctilucales and Amphidinium and provides the most compelling evidence to date that the unusual traits within this group are derived rather than ancestral. We also confirm that Spatulodinium plastids are photosynthetic and of ancestral origin, and show that all non-photosynthetic Noctilucales retain plastid genes indicating a cryptic organelle.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".