MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975488016 · doi:10.1534/g3.119.400535

Elucidating the Molecular Determinants of Aβ Aggregation with Deep Mutational Scanning

2019· article· en· W2975488016 on OpenAlexafffund
Vanessa E. Gray, Katherine A. Sitko, Floriane Z. Ngako Kameni, Miriam Williamson, Jason J. Stephany, Nicholas Hasle, Douglas M. Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNational Science FoundationNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsMutagenesisAlanine scanningContext (archaeology)AlanineAmino acidSaturated mutagenesisProtein aggregationComputational biologyIn vitroFibrilBiochemistryBiologyYeastMutationChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the importance of Aβ aggregation in Alzheimer’s disease etiology, our understanding of the sequence determinants of aggregation is sparse and largely derived from in vitro studies. For example, in vitro proline and alanine scanning mutagenesis of Aβ40 proposed core regions important for aggregation. However, we lack even this limited mutagenesis data for the more disease-relevant Aβ42. Thus, to better understand the molecular determinants of Aβ42 aggregation in a cell-based system, we combined a yeast DHFR aggregation assay with deep mutational scanning. We measured the effect of 791 of the 798 possible single amino acid substitutions on the aggregation propensity of Aβ42. We found that ∼75% of substitutions, largely to hydrophobic residues, maintained or increased aggregation. We identified 11 positions at which substitutions, particularly to hydrophilic and charged amino acids, disrupted Aβ aggregation. These critical positions were similar but not identical to critical positions identified in previous Aβ mutagenesis studies. Finally, we analyzed our large-scale mutagenesis data in the context of different Aβ aggregate structural models, finding that the mutagenesis data agreed best with models derived from fibrils seeded using brain-derived Aβ aggregates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207