Quasi-programmed aging of budding yeast: a trade-off between programmed processes of cell proliferation, differentiation, stress response, survival and death defines yeast lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings suggest that evolutionarily distant organisms share the key features of the aging process and exhibit similar mechanisms of its modulation by certain genetic, dietary and pharmacological interventions. The scope of this review is to analyze mechanisms that in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae underlie: (1) the replicative and chronological modes of aging; (2) the convergence of these 2 modes of aging into a single aging process; (3) a programmed differentiation of aging cell communities in liquid media and on solid surfaces; and (4) longevity-defining responses of cells to some chemical compounds released to an ecosystem by other organisms populating it. Based on such analysis, we conclude that all these mechanisms are programs for upholding the long-term survival of the entire yeast population inhabiting an ecological niche; however, none of these mechanisms is a "program of aging" - i.e., a program for progressing through consecutive steps of the aging process.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".