Mitochondria Need Their Sleep: Redox, Bioenergetics, and Temperature Regulation of Circadian Rhythms and the Role of Cysteine-Mediated Redox Signaling, Uncoupling Proteins, and Substrate Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although circadian biorhythms of mitochondria and cells are highly conserved and crucial for the well-being of complex animals, there is a paucity of studies on the reciprocal interactions between oxidative stress, redox modifications, metabolism, thermoregulation, and other major oscillatory physiological processes. To address this limitation, we hypothesize that circadian/ultradian interaction of the redoxome, bioenergetics, and temperature signaling strongly determine the differential activities of the sleep-wake cycling of mammalians and birds. Posttranslational modifications of proteins by reversible cysteine oxoforms, S-glutathionylation and S-nitrosylation are shown to play a major role in regulating mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production, protein activity, respiration, and metabolomics. Nuclear DNA repair and cellular protein synthesis are maximized during the wake phase, whereas the redoxome is restored and mitochondrial remodeling is maximized during sleep. Hence, our analysis reveals that wakefulness is more protective and restorative to the nucleus (nucleorestorative), whereas sleep is more protective and restorative to mitochondria (mitorestorative). The "redox-bioenergetics-temperature and differential mitochondrial-nuclear regulatory hypothesis" adds to the understanding of mitochondrial respiratory uncoupling, substrate cycling control and hibernation. Similarly, this hypothesis explains how the oscillatory redox-bioenergetics-temperature-regulated sleep-wake states, when perturbed by mitochondrial interactome disturbances, influence the pathogenesis of aging, cancer, spaceflight health effects, sudden infant death syndrome, and diseases of the metabolism and nervous system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".