The Good and the Bad of SHROOM3 in Kidney Development and Disease: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review: Multiple large-scale genome-wide association meta-analyses studies have reliably identified an association between genetic variants within the SHROOM3 gene and chronic kidney disease. This association extends to alterations in known markers of kidney disease including baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and blood urea nitrogen. Yet, an understanding of the molecular mechanisms behind the association of SHROOM3 and kidney disease remains poorly communicated. We conducted a narrative review to summarize the current state of literature regarding the genetic and molecular relationships between SHROOM3 and kidney development and disease. Sources of information: PubMed, PubMed Central, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases, as well as review of references from relevant studies and independent Google Scholar searches to fill gaps in knowledge. Methods: A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to explore the molecular mechanisms underlying SHROOM3 and kidney development, function, and disease. Key findings: SHROOM3 is a unique protein, as it is the only member of the SHROOM group of proteins that regulates actin dynamics through apical constriction and apicobasal cell elongation. It holds a dichotomous role in the kidney, as subtle alterations in SHROOM3 expression and function can be both pathological and protective toward kidney disease. Genome-wide association studies have identified genetic variants near the transcription start site of the SHROOM3 gene associated with chronic kidney disease. SHROOM3 also appears to protect the glomerular structure and function in conditions such as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. However, little is known about the exact mechanisms by which this protection occurs, which is why SHROOM3 binding partners remain an opportunity for further investigation. Limitations: Our search was limited to English articles. No structured assessment of study quality was performed, and selection bias of included articles may have occurred. As we discuss future directions and opportunities, this narrative review reflects the academic views of the authors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".