Mitochondrial substrate specificity in beetle flight muscle: assessing respiratory oxygen flux in small samples from <i>Dermestes maculatus</i> and <i>Tenebrio molitor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present study, the permeabilized fibre approach is adapted to investigate substrate utilization patterns in the flight muscle mitochondria of Dermestes maculatus (Coleoptera: Dermestidae; a carrion scavenger beetle) and Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae; a phytophagous scavenger beetle). Respiration in saponin‐permeabilized fibres is measured during titration of palmitoyl‐carnitine (Palm‐C), pyruvate (Pyr) or l ‐glycerol 3‐phosphate (G3‐P). Michaelis–Menten‐type enzyme kinetics for oxygen consumption are observed as a function of substrate concentration in Pyr and G3‐P, from which substrate‐specific apparent K m (sensitivity) and V max (capacity) are determined. Compared with D. maculatus , the apparent K m in T. molitor is lower ( P < 0.001) for Pyr, and V max is greater for G3‐P ( P < 0.001). In D. maculatus , the apparent K m for G3‐P is greater ( P < 0.001), and respiratory V max is lower ( P < 0.001), than kinetics for Pyr. Robust respiration with l ‐proline (Pro) is also observed in both beetle species tested; however, it is over 2.5‐fold greater in D. maculatus than T. molitor ( P < 0.05). These results demonstrate that respiration in beetle flight muscle mitochondria can be assessed in small samples (i.e. at the individual beetle level) using the approach adapted for the present study. The results of the present study also highlight the substrate oxidative capacity patterns in both D. maculatus and T. molitor , which rank Palm‐C < G3‐P < Pyr < Pro.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".