Maintaining Peroxisome Populations: A Story of Division and Inheritance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eukaryotic cells divide their metabolic labor between functionally distinct, membrane-enveloped organelles, each precisely tailored for a specific set of biochemical reactions. Peroxisomes are ubiquitous, endoplasmic reticulum-derived organelles that perform requisite biochemical functions intimately connected to lipid metabolism. Upon cell division, cells have to strictly control peroxisome division and inheritance to maintain an appropriate number of peroxisomes in each cell. Peroxisome division follows a specific sequence of events that include peroxisome elongation, membrane constriction, and peroxisome fission. Pex11 proteins mediate the elongation step of peroxisome division, whereas dynamin-related proteins execute the final fission. The mechanisms responsible for peroxisome membrane constriction are poorly understood. Molecular players involved in peroxisome inheritance are just beginning to be elucidated. Inp1p and Inp2p are two recently identified peroxisomal proteins that perform antagonistic functions in regulating peroxisome inheritance in budding yeast. Inp1p promotes the retention of peroxisomes in mother cells and buds by attaching peroxisomes to as-yet-unidentified cortical structures. Inp2p is implicated in the motility of peroxisomes by linking them to the Myo2p motor, which then propels their movement along actin cables. The functions of Inp1p and Inp2p are cell cycle regulated and coordinated to ensure a fair distribution of peroxisomes at cytokinesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".