rps-11
C. elegans
Small ribosomal subunit protein uS17
What the model saw
Gene: rps-11 Organism: Caenorhabditis elegans Known functions: Small ribosomal subunit protein uS17. structural constituent of ribosome.
View unredacted entry
Small ribosomal subunit protein uS17. structural constituent of ribosome.
Solver output
rps-11 encodes the small ribosomal subunit protein uS17, a structural component of the 40S ribosome. In C. elegans, partial loss-of-function of ribosomal small subunit proteins (including rps genes) is well-established to extend lifespan, acting through reduced translational capacity that mimics dietary restriction and downregulates TOR/mTORC1 signaling. The normal (wild-type) function of rps-11 is to maintain full ribosomal activity and translational output, which sustains high mTOR-driven anabolic signaling — a state associated with accelerated aging. Thus, the gene's normal function promotes robust translation and nutrient-sensing activity, opposing longevity. Knockdown of rps-11 (and paralogs) extends lifespan in C. elegans, confirming that the wild-type function is anti-longevity in the context of aging biology.
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's mechanistic reasoning is actually correct and well-articulated: rps-11 encodes a ribosomal small subunit protein, and knockdown of ribosomal proteins in C. elegans extends lifespan, meaning the wild-type gene function is anti-longevity (promotes aging by maintaining high translational output). However, the model contradicts itself in its final classification. The reasoning correctly concludes that "the wild-type function is anti-longevity," but then the model assigns "pro_longevity" as the longevity_influence — the opposite of what its own reasoning supports and the opposite of the ground truth (anti_longevity). This is a clear internal contradiction where the model's stated conclusion in the reasoning field matches the ground truth, but the actual prediction field is wrong. The confidence of 0.72 makes this a confident wrong answer.
Raw API responses
solver
{
"reasoning": "rps-11 encodes the small ribosomal subunit protein uS17, a structural component of the 40S ribosome. In C. elegans, partial loss-of-function of ribosomal small subunit proteins (including rps genes) is well-established to extend lifespan, acting through reduced translational capacity that mimics dietary restriction and downregulates TOR/mTORC1 signaling. The normal (wild-type) function of rps-11 is to maintain full ribosomal activity and translational output, which sustains high mTOR-driven anabolic signaling — a state associated with accelerated aging. Thus, the gene's normal function promotes robust translation and nutrient-sensing activity, opposing longevity. Knockdown of rps-11 (and paralogs) extends lifespan in C. elegans, confirming that the wild-type function is anti-longevity in the context of aging biology.",
"confidence": 0.72,
"key_pathways": [
"mTOR/TOR nutrient sensing",
"ribosome biogenesis and translational regulation",
"dietary restriction mimicry"
],
"mechanism_class": "deregulated_nutrient_sensing",
"longevity_influence": "pro_longevity"
}advisor
{
"notes": "The model's mechanistic reasoning is actually correct and well-articulated: rps-11 encodes a ribosomal small subunit protein, and knockdown of ribosomal proteins in C. elegans extends lifespan, meaning the wild-type gene function is anti-longevity (promotes aging by maintaining high translational output). However, the model contradicts itself in its final classification. The reasoning correctly concludes that \"the wild-type function is anti-longevity,\" but then the model assigns \"pro_longevity\" as the longevity_influence — the opposite of what its own reasoning supports and the opposite of the ground truth (anti_longevity). This is a clear internal contradiction where the model's stated conclusion in the reasoning field matches the ground truth, but the actual prediction field is wrong. The confidence of 0.72 makes this a confident wrong answer.",
"failure_mode": "confident_wrong",
"answer_correct": false,
"mechanism_correct": true,
"reasoning_quality": 3,
"ground_truth_questionable": false
}