MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A screen for genes involved in respiration control and longevity in <i>Schizosaccharomyces pombe</i>

2010· review· en· W1600088146 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine E. Roux, Geneviève Arseneault, Pascal Chartrand, Gerardo Ferbeyre, Luis A. Rokeach

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSchizosaccharomyces pombeMutantGeneYeastBiologySchizosaccharomycesProtein subunitGeneticsPhenotypeSaccharomyces cerevisiaeLife spanCell biologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results showing that glucose signaling has proaging effects in the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Deletion of the receptor that senses extracellular glucose (Git3) increases the life span of S. pombe, while constitutive activation of the Galpha subunit acting downstream of this receptor (Gpa2) shortens its life span. The latter mutant is also impaired for growth under respiration conditions. We have used this phenotype in a selection strategy to identify genes that when overexpressed can rescue the respiratory defect of constitutively active Galpha subunit mutants. Here, we report an extended version of the work we presented at the IABG meeting and the results of this screen. This strategy allowed us to isolate four genes: psp1(+)/moc1(+), cka1(+), adh1(+), and rpb10(+). Interestingly, the overexpression of these genes was also capable of increasing the chronological life span of wild-type yeast cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207