MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096028394 · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddg324

Structural and functional analyses of disease-causing missense mutations in the forkhead domain of FOXC1

2003· article· en· W2096028394 on OpenAlexaff
Ramsey A. Saleem

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Molecular Genetics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransactivationMissense mutationBiologyForkhead Transcription FactorsGeneticsMutationTranscription factorGeneDNA-binding domain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five missense mutations (P79L, P79T, I91S, I91T and R127H) within the forkhead DNA-binding domain of the FOXC1 transcription factor, identified in patients with Axenfeld-Rieger (AR) malformations, were studied to identify the effects of these mutations on FOXC1 structure and function. Molecular modeling and threading analyses predict that the I91S and T mutations may generate local disruptions to the structure of the forkhead domain while the R127H mutation alters the electrostatic charge of the DNA binding surface of the forkhead domain. The P79L and T mutations are not predicted to grossly perturb the structure of the forkhead domain. Biological analyses indicate that all of these missense mutations cause a range of FOXC1 perturbations, including nuclear localization defects, reduced or abolished DNA binding capacity, and a reduction in the transactivation capacity of FOXC1. These experiments extend our previous hypothesis that reduced transactivation of appropriate target genes by FOXC1, underlie AR malformations mapping to human chromosome 6p25. Importantly, these results can also be applied to predict the consequences of the molecular effects of mutations of other FOX genes that have analogous missense mutations, including FOXP2, FOXE3 and FOXC2.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Molecular GeneticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207