A Systematic Cell‐Based Analysis of Localization of Predicted <i>Drosophila</i> Peroxisomal Proteins
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peroxisomes are membrane-bound organelles found in almost all eukaryotic cells. They perform specialized biochemical functions that vary with organism, tissue or cell type. Mutations in human genes required for the assembly of peroxisomes result in a spectrum of diseases called the peroxisome biogenesis disorders. A previous sequence-based comparison of the predicted proteome of Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly) to human proteins identified 82 potential homologues of proteins involved in peroxisomal biogenesis, homeostasis or metabolism. However, the subcellular localization of these proteins relative to the peroxisome was not determined. Accordingly, we tested systematically the localization and selected functions of epitope-tagged proteins in Drosophila Schneider 2 cells to determine the subcellular localization of 82 potential Drosophila peroxisomal protein homologues. Excluding the Pex proteins, 34 proteins localized primarily to the peroxisome, 8 showed dual localization to the peroxisome and other structures, and 26 localized exclusively to organelles other than the peroxisome. Drosophila is a well-developed laboratory animal often used for discovery of gene pathways, including those linked to human disease. Our work establishes a basic understanding of peroxisome protein localization in Drosophila. This will facilitate use of Drosophila as a genetically tractable, multicellular model system for studying key aspects of human peroxisome disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it