ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
When "loss-of-function" means proteostasis burden: Thinking again about coding DNA variants.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a functional assay for the characterisation ofJournal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Epistaxis Prevention, Treatment, and Future Perspectives for Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Acute endothelial stresses identify microRNA let-7b-5p and non-coding SLC11A2 (NRAMP2/DMT1) exon as biomarkers that overlap with those detected in malignant and non-malignant diseases.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 2025Article
- LysineFrontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Each human genome has approximately 5 million DNA variants. Even for complete loss-of-function variants causing inherited, monogenic diseases, current understanding based on gene-specific molecular function does not adequately predict variability observed between people with identical mutations or fluctuating disease trajectories. We present a parallel paradigm for loss-of-function variants based on broader consequences to the cell when aberrant polypeptide chains of amino acids are translated from mutant RNA to generate mutated proteins. Missense variants that modify primary amino acid sequence, and nonsense/frameshift variants that generate premature termination codons (PTCs), are placed in context alongside emergent themes of chaperone binding, protein quality control capacity, and cellular adaptation to stress. Relatively stable proteostasis burdens are contrasted with rapid changes after induction of gene expression, or stress responses that suppress nonsense mediated decay (NMD) leading to higher PTC transcript levels where mutant proteins can augment cellular stress. For known disease-causal mutations, an adjunctive variant categorization system enhances clinical predictive power and precision therapeutic opportunities. Additionally, with typically more than 100 nonsense and frameshift variants, and ∼10,000 missense variants per human DNA, the paradigm focuses attention on all protein-coding DNA variants, and their potential contributions to multimorbid states beyond classically designated inherited diseases. Experimental testing in clinically relevant systems is encouraged to augment current atlases of protein expression at single-cell resolution, and high-throughput experimental data and deep-learning models that predict which amino acid substitutions generate enhanced degradative burdens. Incorporating additional dimensions such as pan-proteome competition for chaperones, and age-related loss of proteostasis capacity, should further accelerate health impacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.