Mitochondrial Network Branching Enables Rapid Protein Spread with Slower Mitochondrial Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial network structure is controlled by the dynamical processes of fusion and fission, which merge and split mitochondrial tubes into structures including branches and loops. To investigate the impact of mitochondrial network dynamics and structure on the spread of proteins and other molecules through mitochondrial networks, we used stochastic simulations of two distinct quantitative models that each included mitochondrial fusion and fission, and particle diffusion via the network. Better-connected mitochondrial networks and networks with faster dynamics exhibit more rapid particle spread on the network, with little further improvement once a network has become well connected. As fragmented networks gradually become better connected, particle spread either steadily improves until the networks become well connected for slow-diffusing particles or plateaus for fast-diffusing particles. We compared model mitochondrial networks with both end-to-end and end-to-side fusion, which form branches, to nonbranching model networks that lack end-to-side fusion. To achieve the optimum (most rapid) spread that occurs on well-connected branching networks, nonbranching networks require much faster fusion and fission dynamics. Thus, the process of end-to-side fusion, which creates branches in mitochondrial networks, enables rapid spread of particles on the network with relatively slow fusion and fission dynamics. This modeling of protein spread on mitochondrial networks builds toward mechanistic understanding of how mitochondrial structure and dynamics regulate mitochondrial function. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".