MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730103937 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.06.015

Regulation of Mitochondrial Complex I Biogenesis in Drosophila Flight Muscles

2017· article· en· W2730103937 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christian Garcia, Jahan Khajeh, Emmanuel Coulanges, Emily I-ju Chen, Edward Owusu-Ansah

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiogenesisMechanism (biology)Drosophila (subgenus)Mitochondrial biogenesisCell biologyMitochondrionDrosophila melanogasterBiologyOrganelle biogenesisModel organismBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207