MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020431992 · doi:10.1002/biot.200800015

Mitochondria and ageing in <i>Drosophila</i>

2008· review· en· W2020431992 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgeingDrosophila melanogasterMitochondrionBiologyMitochondrial DNAModel organismGenomeOxidative stressDrosophila (subgenus)GeneticsCell biologyGeneReactive oxygen speciesOrganismBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies in different organisms have revealed that ageing is a complex process involving a tight regulation of gene expression. Among other features, ageing organisms generally display an increased oxidative stress and a decreased mitochondrial function. The increase in oxidative stress can be attributable to reactive oxygen species, which are mainly produced by mitochondria as a by-product of energy metabolism. Consistent with these data, mitochondria have been suggested to play a significant role in lifespan determination. The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster is a well-suited organism to study ageing as it is relatively short-lived, mainly composed of post-mitotic cells, has sequenced nuclear and mitochondrial genomes, and multiple genetic tools are available. It has been used in genome-wide studies to unveil the molecular signature of ageing, in different feeding and dietary restriction protocols and in overexpression and down-regulation studies to examine the effect of specific compounds or genes/proteins on lifespan. Here we review the various features linking mitochondria and ageing in Drosophila melanogaster.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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