In situ architecture of the ER–mitochondria encounter structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria are main hubs of eukaryotic membrane biogenesis that rely on lipid exchange via membrane contact sites1–3, but the underpinning mechanisms remain poorly understood. In yeast, tethering and lipid transfer between the two organelles is mediated by the endoplasmic reticulum–mitochondria encounter structure (ERMES), a four-subunit complex of unresolved stoichiometry and architecture4–6. Here we determined the molecular organization of ERMES within Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells using integrative structural biology by combining quantitative live imaging, cryo-correlative microscopy, subtomogram averaging and molecular modelling. We found that ERMES assembles into approximately 25 discrete bridge-like complexes distributed irregularly across a contact site. Each bridge consists of three synaptotagmin-like mitochondrial lipid binding protein domains oriented in a zig-zag arrangement. Our molecular model of ERMES reveals a pathway for lipids. These findings resolve the in situ supramolecular architecture of a major inter-organelle lipid transfer machinery and provide a basis for the mechanistic understanding of lipid fluxes in eukaryotic cells. Integrative structural biology combining quantitative live imaging, cryo-correlative microscopy, subtomogram averaging and molecular modelling enables in situ determination of the structure of the endoplasmic reticulum–mitochondria encounter complex in yeast.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".