MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948862058 · doi:10.1242/jcs.228411

Yeast ceramide synthases, Lag1 and Lac1, have distinct substrate specificity

2019· article· en· W2948862058 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Márton Megyeri, Rupali Prasad, Giora Volpert, Andrzej Sliwa-Gonzalez, Augustinus Galih, Auxiliadora Aguilera-Romero, Howard Riezman, Yves Barral, Anthony H. Futerman, Maya Schuldiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsInstitute of Genetics and Genomics of GenevaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungSeventh Framework ProgrammeNational Center of Competence in Research Chemical BiologyWeizmann Institute of ScienceVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsBiologyCeramideSaccharomyces cerevisiaeEnzymeYeastSphingolipidFunction (biology)BiochemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lag1 was the first longevity assurance gene, discovered in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Lag1 is a ceramide synthase and its homolog, Lac1, has a similar enzymatic function but no role in aging. Lag1 and Lac1 lay in an enzymatic branchpoint of the sphingolipid pathway that is interconnected by the activity of the C4-hydroxylase, Sur2. By uncoupling the enzymatic branch point and using lipidomic mass spectrometry, metabolic labeling and in vitro assays we show that Lag1 preferentially synthesizes phyto-sphingolipids. Using photo-bleaching experiments we show that the Lag1 protein is uniquely required for the establishment of a lateral diffusion barrier in the nuclear envelope, which depends on phytoceramide. Given the role of this diffusion barrier in the retention of aging factors in the mother cell, we suggest that the different specificities of the two ceramide synthases, and the specific effect of Lag1 on asymmetrical inheritance, may explain why Δlag1 cells have an increased lifespan while Δlac1 cells do not.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207