MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323926585 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106376

Genetic control of body weight by the human brain proteome

2023· article· en· W4323926585 on OpenAlexafffund
Éloi Gagnon, Arnaud Girard, Émilie Gobeil, Jérôme Bourgault, Christian Couture, Patricia L. Mitchell, Claude Bouchard, Angelo Tremblay, Patrick Mathieu, Andréanne Michaud, Louis Përusse, Benoît J. Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité Laval
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyMendelian randomizationColocalizationProteomeBiologyGeneExpression quantitative trait lociAlleleProteomicsGenetic associationGeneticsComputational biologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismNeuroscienceGenetic variantsGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of genetic variants associated with body weight but the biological relevance of most remains unexplored. Given the critical role of the brain in body weight regulation, we set out to determine whether genetic variants linked with body mass index (BMI) could be mapped to brain proteins. Using genetic colocalization, we mapped 25 loci from the largest BMI GWAS (n = 806,834) to brain protein concentrations obtained from publicly available datasets. We also performed a proteome-wide Mendelian randomization on 696 brain proteins followed by genetic colocalization and identified 35 additional brain proteins. Only a minority of these proteins (<30%) had a colocalization signal with cortex gene expression levels, highlighting the value of moving beyond gene expression levels and examining brain protein levels. In conclusion, we identified 60 unique proteins expressed in the brain that may be critical regulators of body weight in humans.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207