The <scp>IDIP</scp> framework for assessing protein function and its application to the prion protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The quest to determine the function of a protein can represent a profound challenge. Although this task is the mandate of countless research groups, a general framework for how it can be approached is conspicuously lacking. Moreover, even expectations for when the function of a protein can be considered to be ‘known’ are not well defined. In this review, we begin by introducing concepts pertinent to the challenge of protein function assignments. We then propose a framework for inferring a protein's function from four data categories: ‘inheritance’, ‘distribution’, ‘interactions’ and ‘phenotypes’ (IDIP). We document that the functions of proteins emerge at the intersection of inferences drawn from these data categories and emphasise the benefit of considering them in an evolutionary context. We then apply this approach to the cellular prion protein (PrPC), well known for its central role in prion diseases, whose function continues to be considered elusive by many investigators. We document that available data converge on the conclusion that the function of the prion protein is to control a critical post‐translational modification of the neural cell adhesion molecule in the context of epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition and related plasticity programmes. Finally, we argue that this proposed function of PrPC has already passed the test of time and is concordant with the IDIP framework in a way that other functions considered for this protein fail to achieve. We anticipate that the IDIP framework and the concepts analysed herein will aid the investigation of other proteins whose primary functional assignments have thus far been intractable.
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 | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".