Minireview: The Effects of Species Ortholog and SNP Variation on Receptors for Free Fatty Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is widely assumed that species orthologs of hormone-responsive G protein-coupled receptors will be activated by the same endogenously produced ligand(s), variation in potency, particularly in cases in which more than 1 receptor responds to the same hormone, can result in challenges in defining the contribution of individual receptors in different species. This can create considerably greater issues when using synthetic chemical ligands and, in some cases, may result in a complete lack of efficacy of such a ligand when used in animal models of pathophysiology. In man, the concept that distinct responses of individuals to medicines may reflect differences in the ability of such drugs to bind to or activate single nucleotide polymorphism variants of receptors is more established as a concept but, in many cases, clear links between such variants that are associated with disease phenotypes and substantial differences in receptor ligand pharmacology have been more difficult to obtain. Herein we consider each of these issues for the group of free fatty acid receptors, FFA1-FFA4, defined to be activated by free fatty acids of varying chain length, which, based on their production by 1 tissue or location and action in distinct locations, have been suggested to possess characteristics of hormones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".