A molecular network of the aging brain implicates <i>INPPL1</i> and <i>PLXNB1</i> in Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fact that only symptomatic therapies of small effect are available for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) today highlights the need for new therapeutic targets with which to prevent a major contributor to aging-related cognitive decline. Here, we report the construction and validation of a molecular network of the aging human frontal cortex. Using RNA sequence data from 478 individuals, we first identify the role of modules of coexpressed genes, and then confirm them in independent AD datasets. Then, we prioritize influential genes in AD-related modules and test our predictions in human model systems. We functionally validate two putative regulator genes in human astrocytes: INPPL1 and PLXNB1 , whose activity in AD may be related to semaphorin signalling and type II diabetes, which have both been implicated in AD. This arc of network identification followed by statistical and experimental validation provides specific new targets for therapeutic development and illustrates a network approach to a complex disease. One sentence summary Molecular network analysis of RNA sequencing data from the aging human cortex identifies new Alzheimer’s and cognitive decline genes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".