Regulation of Mitochondrial Complex I Biogenesis in Drosophila Flight Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flight muscles of Drosophila are highly enriched with mitochondria, but the mechanism by which mitochondrial complex I (CI) is assembled in this tissue has not been described. We report the mechanism of CI biogenesis in Drosophila flight muscles and show that it proceeds via the formation of ∼315, ∼550, and ∼815 kDa CI assembly intermediates. Additionally, we define specific roles for several CI subunits in the assembly process. In particular, we show that dNDUFS5 is required for converting an ∼700 kDa transient CI assembly intermediate into the ∼815 kDa assembly intermediate. Importantly, incorporation of dNDUFS5 into CI is necessary to stabilize or promote incorporation of dNDUFA10 into the complex. Our findings highlight the potential of studies of CI biogenesis in Drosophila to uncover the mechanism of CI assembly in vivo and establish Drosophila as a suitable model organism and resource for addressing questions relevant to CI biogenesis in humans.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".