← Browse entries

usp-48

C. elegans

Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase usp-48

What the model saw

Gene: usp-48
Organism: Caenorhabditis elegans
Known functions: Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase usp-48. cysteine-type deubiquitinase activity.
View unredacted entry
Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase usp-48. cysteine-type deubiquitinase activity.

Solver output

Predicted influence
Unclear
Confidence
35%
Mechanism
Loss of proteostasis
Reasoning

USP-48 is a cysteine-type deubiquitinase (DUB) that removes ubiquitin chains from substrate proteins, thereby opposing their proteasomal degradation. Deubiquitinases can either promote or oppose longevity depending on their specific substrates: if USP-48 stabilizes pro-longevity proteins (e.g., stress response transcription factors), it would be pro-longevity, but if it stabilizes pro-aging or growth-promoting substrates, it would be anti-longevity. In C. elegans, proteostasis is tightly linked to longevity via the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy, and DUBs that antagonize clearance of damaged or aggregated proteins can impair proteostasis. However, without known substrates or genetic interaction data for usp-48 specifically, the net effect on longevity cannot be confidently assigned from molecular function annotations alone.

Key pathways
ubiquitin-proteasome systemdeubiquitination/proteostasisprotein quality control
Longevity influence
Pro-longevity
Lifespan effect
Decrease

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

Answer
Incorrect
Mechanism
Incorrect
Reasoning quality
3/5
Failure mode
Appropriately uncertain
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 that DUBs can have bidirectional effects on longevity depending on their substrates, and appropriately notes the uncertainty without specific substrate or genetic interaction data. The mechanism class of "loss_of_proteostasis" is somewhat speculative and not necessarily correct. The model's low confidence (0.35) reflects appropriate uncertainty, but the prediction is still wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty rather than a confident wrong answer.

Raw API responses

solver

{
  "reasoning": "USP-48 is a cysteine-type deubiquitinase (DUB) that removes ubiquitin chains from substrate proteins, thereby opposing their proteasomal degradation. Deubiquitinases can either promote or oppose longevity depending on their specific substrates: if USP-48 stabilizes pro-longevity proteins (e.g., stress response transcription factors), it would be pro-longevity, but if it stabilizes pro-aging or growth-promoting substrates, it would be anti-longevity. In C. elegans, proteostasis is tightly linked to longevity via the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy, and DUBs that antagonize clearance of damaged or aggregated proteins can impair proteostasis. However, without known substrates or genetic interaction data for usp-48 specifically, the net effect on longevity cannot be confidently assigned from molecular function annotations alone.",
  "confidence": 0.35,
  "key_pathways": [
    "ubiquitin-proteasome system",
    "deubiquitination/proteostasis",
    "protein quality control"
  ],
  "mechanism_class": "loss_of_proteostasis",
  "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 that DUBs can have bidirectional effects on longevity depending on their substrates, and appropriately notes the uncertainty without specific substrate or genetic interaction data. The mechanism class of \"loss_of_proteostasis\" is somewhat speculative and not necessarily correct. The model's low confidence (0.35) reflects appropriate uncertainty, but the prediction is still wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty rather than a confident wrong answer.",
  "failure_mode": "appropriately_uncertain",
  "answer_correct": false,
  "mechanism_correct": false,
  "reasoning_quality": 3,
  "ground_truth_questionable": false
}