MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041454712 · doi:10.3390/ijms21144824

PRPS-Associated Disorders and the Drosophila Model of Arts Syndrome

2020· review· en· W3041454712 on OpenAlexafffund
Keemo Delos Santos, Eun‐Jeong Kwon, Nam-Sung Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical and Molecular Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCRISPRBiologyDrosophila melanogasterGeneticsMissense mutationCas9GeneGenome editingComputational biologyMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While a plethora of genetic techniques have been developed over the past century, modifying specific sequences of the fruit fly genome has been a difficult, if not impossible task. clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 truly redefined molecular genetics and provided new tools to model human diseases in Drosophila melanogaster. This is particularly true for genes whose protein sequences are highly conserved. Phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate synthetase (PRPS) is a rate-limiting enzyme in nucleotide metabolism whose missense mutations are found in several neurological disorders, including Arts syndrome. In addition, PRPS is deregulated in cancer, particularly those that become resistant to cancer therapy. Notably, Drosophila PRPS shares about 90% protein sequence identity with its human orthologs, making it an ideal gene to study via CRISPR/Cas9. In this review, we will summarize recent findings on PRPS mutations in human diseases including cancer and on the molecular mechanisms by which PRPS activity is regulated. We will also discuss potential applications of Drosophila CRISPR/Cas9 to model PRPS-dependent disorders and other metabolic diseases that are associated with nucleotide metabolism.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicBiochemical and Molecular ResearchFrench-language works237,207