MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404251208 · doi:10.1177/18796397241295303

Revisiting huntingtin activity and localization signals in the context of protein structure

2024· review· en· W4404251208 on OpenAlexaff
Ray Truant, Rachel Harding, Kaitlyn Neuman, Tamara Maiuri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Huntington s Disease · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuntingtinHuntingtin ProteinContext (archaeology)Polyglutamine tractSpinocerebellar ataxiaBiologyComputational biologyProtein structureNeuroscienceGeneticsAtaxiaBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein localization signals and activity motifs have been defined within huntingtin since 2003. Advances in technology in protein structure determination by cryo-electron microscopy (EM) have led to 2.6 Å resolution structures of huntingtin and HAP40 for the majority of the protein, although structure of the amino terminus with the polyglutamine expansion remains elusive in the context of full-length huntingtin. Recent advances in protein modeling using neural network algorithms trained on a database of known protein structures has resulted in structure predictions that are useful for researchers but need experimental validation. Here, we use both structures solved by cryo-EM as well as modeling centered around experimental structural data to retrospectively revisit huntingtin protein localization signals identified prior to the cryo-EM and AI-enabled structural revolutions. We interrogate these models as well as put forward testable hypotheses of allosteric changes in huntingtin and how they could be affected by polyglutamine expansion. We also extended this methodology to another polyglutamine disease protein, ataxin-1, expanded in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 1 (SCA1).

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Huntington s DiseaseSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207