MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209574251 · doi:10.1083/jcb.202104100

Cnm1 mediates nucleus–mitochondria contact site formation in response to phospholipid levels

2021· article· en· W3209574251 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michal Eisenberg‐Bord, Naama Zung, Javier Collado, Layla Drwesh, Emma J. Fenech, Amir Fadel, Nili Dezorella, Yury S. Bykov, Doron Rapaport, Rubén Fernández‐Busnadiego, Maya Schuldiner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMinerva Foundation
KeywordsOrganelleMitochondrionNucleusCell biologyCrosstalkInner membraneBiologyCell nucleusBiophysicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial functions are tightly regulated by nuclear activity, requiring extensive communication between these organelles. One way by which organelles can communicate is through contact sites, areas of close apposition held together by tethering molecules. While many contacts have been characterized in yeast, the contact between the nucleus and mitochondria was not previously identified. Using fluorescence and electron microscopy in S. cerevisiae, we demonstrate specific areas of contact between the two organelles. Using a high-throughput screen, we uncover a role for the uncharacterized protein Ybr063c, which we have named Cnm1 (contact nucleus mitochondria 1), as a molecular tether on the nuclear membrane. We show that Cnm1 mediates contact by interacting with Tom70 on mitochondria. Moreover, Cnm1 abundance is regulated by phosphatidylcholine, enabling the coupling of phospholipid homeostasis with contact extent. The discovery of a molecular mechanism that allows mitochondrial crosstalk with the nucleus sets the ground for better understanding of mitochondrial functions in health and disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations67
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207