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

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

2008· review· en· W2020431992 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Morrow, Robert M. Tanguay

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.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.002

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 head0.019
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

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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology JournalSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207