How and why intralumenal membrane fragments form during vacuolar lysosome fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lysosomal membrane fusion mediates the last step of the autophagy and endocytosis pathways and supports organelle remodeling and biogenesis. Because fusogenic proteins and lipids concentrate in a ring at the vertex between apposing organelle membranes, the encircled area of membrane can be severed and internalized within the lumen as a fragment upon lipid bilayer fusion. How or why this intralumenal fragment forms during fusion, however, is not entirely clear. To better understand this process, we studied fragment formation during homotypic vacuolar lysosome membrane fusion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using cell-free fusion assays and light microscopy, we find that GTPase activation and trans-SNARE complex zippering have opposing effects on fragment formation and verify that this affects the morphology of the fusion product and regulates transporter protein degradation. We show that fragment formwation is limited by stalk expansion, a key intermediate of the lipid bilayer fusion reaction. Using electron microscopy, we present images of hemifusion diaphragms that form as stalks expand and propose a model describing how the fusion machinery regulates fragment formation during lysosome fusion to control morphology and protein lifetimes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".