MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118808867 · doi:10.1186/s13104-021-05462-6

Inhibition of Ref(2)P, the Drosophila homologue of the p62/SQSTM1 gene, increases lifespan and leads to a decline in motor function

2021· article· en· W3118808867 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily P. Hurley, Brian E. Staveley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMotor functionDrosophila (subgenus)Function (biology)GeneBiologyGeneticsNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineBioinformaticsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Sequestosome 1 (p62/SQSTM1) is a multifunctional scaffold/adaptor protein encoded by the p62/SQSTM1 gene with function in cellular homeostasis. Mutations in the p62/SQSTM1 gene have been known to be associated with patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and Parkinson disease (PD). The aim of the present study was to create a novel model of human neurogenerative disease in Drosophila melanogaster by altering the expression of Ref(2)P, the Drosophila orthologue of the human p62/SQSTM1 gene. Ref(2)P expression was altered in all neurons, the dopaminergic neurons and in the motor neurons, with longevity and locomotor function assessed over time. RESULTS: Inhibition of Ref(2)P resulted in a significantly increased median lifespan in the motor neurons, followed by a severe decline in motor skills. Inhibition of Ref(2)P in the dopaminergic neurons resulted in a significant, but minimal increase in median lifespan, accompanied by a drastic decline in locomotor function. Inhibition of Ref(2)P in the ddc-Gal4-expressing neurons resulted in a significant increase in median lifespan, while dramatically reducing motor function.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207