Low Complexity Regions in Mammalian Proteins are Associated with Low Protein Abundance and High Transcript Abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low Complexity Regions (LCRs) are present in a surprisingly large number of eukaryotic proteins. These highly repetitive and compositionally biased sequences are often structurally disordered, bind promiscuously, and evolve rapidly. Frequently studied in terms of evolutionary dynamics, little is known about how LCRs affect the expression of the proteins which contain them. It would be expected that rapidly evolving LCRs are unlikely to be tolerated in strongly conserved, highly abundant proteins, leading to lower overall abundance in proteins which contain LCRs. To test this hypothesis and examine the associations of protein abundance and transcript abundance with the presence of LCRs, we have integrated high-throughput data from across mammals. We have found that LCRs are indeed associated with reduced protein abundance, but are also associated with elevated transcript abundance. These associations are qualitatively consistent across 12 human tissues and nine mammalian species. The differential impacts of LCRs on abundance at the protein and transcript level are not explained by differences in either protein degradation rates or the inefficiency of translation for LCR containing proteins. We suggest that rapidly evolving LCRs are a source of selective pressure on the regulatory mechanisms which maintain steady-state protein abundance levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".