MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135225949 · doi:10.1002/humu.22278

Novel Germline<i>GJA5</i>/Connexin40 Mutations Associated with Lone Atrial Fibrillation Impair Gap Junctional Intercellular Communication

2013· article· en· W2135225949 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiguo Sun, Yi‐Qing Yang, Xiang‐Qun Gong, Xinhua Wang, Ruo-Gu Li, Hong‐Wei Tan, Xu Liu, Weiyi Fang, Donglin Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGap junctionMissense mutationBiologyProbandGermlineGeneticsGermline mutationMutantMutationGeneIntracellular

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide. Here, we investigate the molecular and cellular mechanisms of lone AF-linked germline mutations in the connexin40 (Cx40) gene, GJA5. The entire coding region of GJA5 was sequenced in 68 unrelated patients with lone AF. A novel germline heterozygous missense mutation in Cx40 (p.I75F) was identified in one index patient. The mutation was also present in the proband's father with lone AF but was not found in the unaffected family members who were examined and 200 unrelated healthy control individuals. Electrophysiological studies revealed no electrical coupling of the cell pairs expressing the mutant alone and a significant reduction in gap junction coupling conductance when the mutant was coexpressed with wild-type (wt) Cx40 or Cx43. Interestingly, another lone AF-linked Cx40 mutant p.L229M did not show any apparent coupling defect when expressed alone or together with wt Cx40 but specifically reduced the gap junction coupling when coexpressed with wt Cx43. This study is the first to demonstrate that the germline familial mutations in Cx40 impair the gap junctions through different mechanisms, which may predispose the mutant carriers to AF.

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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations65
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207