ArticleThe Biochemical journal2026
Bioinformatic assessment of the potential amyloidogenicity of the human and evolutionarily more ancient proteomes.
Article in The Biochemical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AmyloGram is a computer program that uses n-gram encoding and a random forest classifier to produce a numerical score between 0 and 1 for the predicted amyloidogenicity of a given protein sequence. In a variety of recent studies, we have used AmyloGram to obtain an overall amyloidogenicity score for members of the human proteome. Of 83,567 full-length canonical human polypeptides, 79.2% had a score exceeding 0.7 (the median was 0.813), consistent with the view that most natural protein sequences contain elements that are in fact potentially amyloidogenic. Here, we first asked whether this operational threshold is supported by orthogonal predictors and curated amyloid proteins, and then whether similarly high scores are also observed in evolutionarily ancient proteomes. For the human proteome, PASTA2 values correlated positively with AmyloGram scores (r2 = 0.374 for minimum free energy and 0.321 for average free energy), and proteins with AmyloGram scores ≥0.7 were significantly enriched for strongly negative PASTA2 values (for average free energy <-10 PEU: 4724/66190 versus 75/17,377; χ2P = 2.4 × 10-250). In AmyPro, 117 curated amyloid proteins had substantially higher median AmyloGram scores than did the ~8 curated non-amyloids, although the imbalance of this dataset demands caution. AMYPred-FRL showed only a weak and partly discordant relationship with AmyloGram in the archaeal test proteome examined. We then computed AmyloGram score distributions for the proteomes of 130 other organisms, including archaea, Gram-negative bacteria, Gram-positive bacteria and viruses, representing 475,999 proteins in total. The corresponding organism-level median AmyloGram scores by domain were 0.822, 0.853, 0.851, and 0.825, respectively, while the overall median across all 130 organism-level medians was 0.828. By contrast, 1000 random 100-mer sequences generated with equal amino-acid probabilities had a median AmyloGram score of 0.740. Weighting according to known residue distributions did not change this. However, a weak dependence of AmyloGram score on sequence length within an organism was observed, and the median length of human proteins (∼375 residues) gave a median AmyloGram score of 0.837. Taken together, these findings are consistent with, though they cannot prove, an early evolutionary origin of widespread amyloidogenic potential in natural proteins, and most likely reflect the biophysical properties of the amino acid residues that tend to induce amyloidogenesis.
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.