MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220982805 · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29189-5

Genetic regulation of post-translational modification of two distinct proteins

2022· article· en· W4220982805 on OpenAlexaff
Arianna Landini, Irena Trbojević‐Akmačić, Pau Navarro, Yakov A. Tsepilov, Sodbo Sharapov, Frano Vučković, Ozren Polašek, Caroline Hayward, Tea Petrović, Marija Vilaj, Yurii S. Aulchenko, Gordan Lauc, James F. Wilson, Lucija Klarić

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicGalectins and Cancer Biology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersMedical Research CouncilRussian Science FoundationHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeResearch Councils UKHrvatska Zaklada za ZnanostEuropean Commission
KeywordsGlycosylationBiologyTransferrinGeneGeneticsFucosylationComputational biologyGlycoproteinGlycanBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-translational modifications diversify protein functions and dynamically coordinate their signalling networks, influencing most aspects of cell physiology. Nevertheless, their genetic regulation or influence on complex traits is not fully understood. Here, we compare the genetic regulation of the same PTM of two proteins - glycosylation of transferrin and immunoglobulin G (IgG). By performing genome-wide association analysis of transferrin glycosylation, we identify 10 significantly associated loci, 9 of which were not reported previously. Comparing these with IgG glycosylation-associated genes, we note protein-specific associations with genes encoding glycosylation enzymes (transferrin - MGAT5, ST3GAL4, B3GAT1; IgG - MGAT3, ST6GAL1), as well as shared associations (FUT6, FUT8). Colocalisation analyses of the latter suggest that different causal variants in the FUT genes regulate fucosylation of the two proteins. Glycosylation of these proteins is thus genetically regulated by both shared and protein-specific mechanisms.

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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGalectins and Cancer BiologyFrench-language works237,207