nhr-77
C. elegans
Nuclear hormone receptor family member nhr-77
What the model saw
Gene: nhr-77 Organism: Caenorhabditis elegans Known functions: Nuclear hormone receptor family member nhr-77. DNA-binding transcription factor activity. sequence-specific DNA binding. zinc ion binding.
View unredacted entry
Nuclear hormone receptor family member nhr-77. DNA-binding transcription factor activity. sequence-specific DNA binding. zinc ion binding.
Solver output
NHR-77 is a nuclear hormone receptor (NHR) family transcription factor in C. elegans, binding DNA via a zinc finger domain. The NHR family in C. elegans is large (~284 members) and functionally diverse, with members regulating metabolism, development, stress responses, and reproduction. Without knowledge of the specific ligand, target genes, or downstream transcriptional program of nhr-77, it is not possible to confidently assign a pro- or anti-longevity role. Some NHRs (e.g., nhr-49, a HNF4α ortholog) promote longevity through lipid metabolism regulation, while others oppose it. The molecular function annotations provided (DNA-binding transcription factor, sequence-specific DNA binding, zinc ion binding) are generic to the entire NHR family and do not distinguish nhr-77's specific biological role in aging.
GenAge curators classify each gene's normal function as promoting (Pro-Longevity) or opposing (Anti-Longevity) longevity, based on synthesis across studies. Loss-of-function effects can vary from this depending on the manipulation.
Advisor judgment
The model predicted "unclear" while the ground truth is "pro_longevity." The model's reasoning is logically sound given the limited information provided - it correctly identifies nhr-77 as a nuclear hormone receptor with generic annotations, and appropriately notes that the large NHR family in C. elegans has diverse functions. The model even correctly cites nhr-49 as a pro-longevity NHR example. However, the model failed to commit to a prediction and instead chose "unclear," which is incorrect relative to the ground truth. The reasoning quality is decent but the model was too cautious and didn't leverage any available signals to make a directional prediction. The confidence of 0.35 reflects appropriate uncertainty, but the model should have at least attempted a directional guess given that many well-studied NHRs in C. elegans tend to be pro-longevity when they appear in aging databases.
Raw API responses
solver
{
"reasoning": "NHR-77 is a nuclear hormone receptor (NHR) family transcription factor in C. elegans, binding DNA via a zinc finger domain. The NHR family in C. elegans is large (~284 members) and functionally diverse, with members regulating metabolism, development, stress responses, and reproduction. Without knowledge of the specific ligand, target genes, or downstream transcriptional program of nhr-77, it is not possible to confidently assign a pro- or anti-longevity role. Some NHRs (e.g., nhr-49, a HNF4α ortholog) promote longevity through lipid metabolism regulation, while others oppose it. The molecular function annotations provided (DNA-binding transcription factor, sequence-specific DNA binding, zinc ion binding) are generic to the entire NHR family and do not distinguish nhr-77's specific biological role in aging.",
"confidence": 0.35,
"key_pathways": [
"nuclear hormone receptor signaling",
"transcriptional regulation",
"zinc finger DNA binding"
],
"mechanism_class": "unclear",
"longevity_influence": "unclear"
}advisor
{
"notes": "The model predicted \"unclear\" while the ground truth is \"pro_longevity.\" The model's reasoning is logically sound given the limited information provided - it correctly identifies nhr-77 as a nuclear hormone receptor with generic annotations, and appropriately notes that the large NHR family in C. elegans has diverse functions. The model even correctly cites nhr-49 as a pro-longevity NHR example. However, the model failed to commit to a prediction and instead chose \"unclear,\" which is incorrect relative to the ground truth. The reasoning quality is decent but the model was too cautious and didn't leverage any available signals to make a directional prediction. The confidence of 0.35 reflects appropriate uncertainty, but the model should have at least attempted a directional guess given that many well-studied NHRs in C. elegans tend to be pro-longevity when they appear in aging databases.",
"failure_mode": "appropriately_uncertain",
"answer_correct": false,
"mechanism_correct": false,
"reasoning_quality": 3,
"ground_truth_questionable": false
}