<i>Drosophila</i> larvae synthesize the putative oncometabolite L-2-hydroxyglutarate during normal developmental growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L-2-hydroxyglutarate (L-2HG) has emerged as a putative oncometabolite that is capable of inhibiting enzymes involved in metabolism, chromatin modification, and cell differentiation. However, despite the ability of L-2HG to interfere with a broad range of cellular processes, this molecule is often characterized as a metabolic waste product. Here, we demonstrate that Drosophila larvae use the metabolic conditions established by aerobic glycolysis to both synthesize and accumulate high concentrations of L-2HG during normal developmental growth. A majority of the larval L-2HG pool is derived from glucose and dependent on the Drosophila estrogen-related receptor (dERR), which promotes L-2HG synthesis by up-regulating expression of the Drosophila homolog of lactate dehydrogenase (dLdh). We also show that dLDH is both necessary and sufficient for directly synthesizing L-2HG and the Drosophila homolog of L-2-hydroxyglutarate dehydrogenase (dL2HGDH), which encodes the enzyme that breaks down L-2HG, is required for stage-specific degradation of the L-2HG pool. In addition, dLDH also indirectly promotes L-2HG accumulation via synthesis of lactate, which activates a metabolic feed-forward mechanism that inhibits dL2HGDH activity and stabilizes L-2HG levels. Finally, we use a genetic approach to demonstrate that dLDH and L-2HG influence position effect variegation and DNA methylation, suggesting that this compound serves to coordinate glycolytic flux with epigenetic modifications. Overall, our studies demonstrate that growing animal tissues synthesize L-2HG in a controlled manner, reveal a mechanism that coordinates glucose catabolism with L-2HG synthesis, and establish the fly as a unique model system for studying the endogenous functions of L-2HG during cell growth and proliferation.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".