MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092997453 · doi:10.1002/alz.12211

Long genes are more frequently affected by somatic mutations and show reduced expression in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for disease etiology

2020· article· en· W3092997453 on OpenAlexaff
Sourena Soheili‐Nezhad, Robert J. van der Linden, Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert, Emma Sprooten, Geert Poelmans

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)
FundersNational Institute on AgingRadboud UniversiteitNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsSomatic cellGeneDiseaseBiologyPathogenesisGeneticsMutationEtiologyGene expressionImmunologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging, the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), may lead to the accumulation of somatic mutations in neurons. We investigated whether somatic mutations, specifically in longer genes, are implicated in AD etiology. First, we modeled the theoretical likelihood of genes being affected by aging-induced somatic mutations, dependent on their length. We then tested this model and found that long genes are indeed more affected by somatic mutations and that their expression is more frequently reduced in AD brains. Furthermore, using gene-set enrichment analysis, we investigated the potential consequences of such long gene disruption. We found that long genes are involved in synaptic adhesion and other synaptic pathways that are predicted to be inhibited in the brains of AD patients. Taken together, our findings indicate that long gene-dependent synaptic impairment may contribute to AD pathogenesis.

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 score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207