Neurological Proteins Are Not Enriched For Repetitive Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteins associated with disease and development of the nervous system are thought to contain repetitive, simple sequences. However, genome-wide surveys for simple sequences within proteins have revealed that repetitive peptide sequences are the most frequent shared peptide segments among eukaryotic proteins, including those of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which has few to no specialized developmental and neurological proteins. It is therefore of interest to determine if these specialized proteins have an excess of simple sequences when compared to other sets of compositionally similar proteins. We have determined the relative abundance of simple sequences within neurological proteins and find no excess of repetitive simple sequence within this class. In fact, polyglutamine repeats that are associated with many neurodegenerative diseases are no more abundant within neurological specialized proteins than within nonneurological collections of proteins. We also examined the codon composition of serine homopolymers to determine what forces may play a role in the evolution of extended homopolymers. Codon type homogeneity tends to be favored, suggesting replicative slippage instead of selection as the main force responsible for producing these homopolymers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".