Recruitment of Peroxin14 to lipid droplets affects triglyceride storage in Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The activity of multiple organelles must be coordinated to ensure cellular lipid homeostasis. This includes the peroxisomes which metabolise certain lipids and lipid droplets which act as neutral lipid storage centres. Direct organellar contact between peroxisomes and lipid droplets has been observed, and interaction between proteins associated with the membranes of these organelles has been shown, but the functional role of these interactions is not clear. In Drosophila cells, we identified a novel localization of a subset of three transmembrane Peroxin proteins (Peroxin3, Peroxin13, and Peroxin14), normally required for peroxisome biogenesis, to newly formed lipid droplets. This event was not linked to significant changes in peroxisome size or number, nor was recruitment of other Peroxin proteins or mature peroxisomes observed. The presence of these Peroxin proteins at lipid droplets influences their function as changes in the relative levels of Peroxin14 associated with the lipid droplet surface directly affected the presence of regulatory perilipin and lipases with corresponding effects on triglyceride storage. Summary statement Interactions between peroxisomes and lipid droplets is thought to help coordinate management of cellular lipids. Peroxin proteins are required for peroxisome biogenesis. A spectrum of effects on triacylglyceride storage was seen when each of the 12 conserved Peroxins are knocked down in the Drosophila fat body with Peroxin14 knockdown having the largest effect. When Drosophila S2 cells were cultured in excess oleic acid, Peroxin3, Peroxin13, and Peroxin14, but not other Peroxins were localized to lipid droplets independently of other peroxisome markers. The presence of Peroxin14 at the lipid droplet surface altered recruitment of perilipin and lipase proteins.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".