← Browse entries

srw-100

C. elegans

G-protein coupled receptors family 1 profile domain-containing protein

What the model saw

Gene: srw-100
Organism: Caenorhabditis elegans
Known functions: G-protein coupled receptors family 1 profile domain-containing protein. G protein-coupled peptide receptor activity.
View unredacted entry
G-protein coupled receptors family 1 profile domain-containing protein. G protein-coupled peptide receptor activity.

Solver output

Predicted influence
Unclear
Confidence
35%
Mechanism
Deregulated nutrient sensing
Reasoning

srw-100 encodes a C. elegans serpentine receptor (family 1 GPCR) with G protein-coupled peptide receptor activity. GPCRs in C. elegans are a highly expanded superfamily with diverse roles; the srw subfamily are chemoreceptor-like GPCRs whose specific ligands and downstream signaling cascades are largely uncharacterized. While some peptide-sensing GPCRs in C. elegans feed into the insulin/IGF-1 or other nutrient-sensing pathways (e.g., via neuropeptide signaling that modulates DAF-2/DAF-16), the specific downstream effectors and physiological role of srw-100 are not established. Without knowledge of which neuropeptide ligand it binds or which G-protein subtype it couples to, it is impossible to determine whether its activity promotes or opposes longevity. The function annotations are too generic to resolve the directionality of its effect on aging.

Key pathways
G protein-coupled receptor signalingneuropeptide signalinginsulin/IGF-1-like signaling (DAF-2/DAF-16)
Longevity influence
Anti-longevity
Lifespan effect
Increase

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" with low confidence (0.35), while the ground truth is "anti_longevity." The model's reasoning is sound given the limited information provided - srw-100 is a poorly characterized GPCR and the model correctly identified the uncertainty around its specific ligands and downstream signaling. However, the model failed to commit to the correct answer. The mechanism class of "deregulated_nutrient_sensing" is speculative and not confirmed. The model's uncertainty was appropriate given the sparse annotation, but it still got the answer wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty rather than confident wrongness.

Raw API responses

solver

{
  "reasoning": "srw-100 encodes a C. elegans serpentine receptor (family 1 GPCR) with G protein-coupled peptide receptor activity. GPCRs in C. elegans are a highly expanded superfamily with diverse roles; the srw subfamily are chemoreceptor-like GPCRs whose specific ligands and downstream signaling cascades are largely uncharacterized. While some peptide-sensing GPCRs in C. elegans feed into the insulin/IGF-1 or other nutrient-sensing pathways (e.g., via neuropeptide signaling that modulates DAF-2/DAF-16), the specific downstream effectors and physiological role of srw-100 are not established. Without knowledge of which neuropeptide ligand it binds or which G-protein subtype it couples to, it is impossible to determine whether its activity promotes or opposes longevity. The function annotations are too generic to resolve the directionality of its effect on aging.",
  "confidence": 0.35,
  "key_pathways": [
    "G protein-coupled receptor signaling",
    "neuropeptide signaling",
    "insulin/IGF-1-like signaling (DAF-2/DAF-16)"
  ],
  "mechanism_class": "deregulated_nutrient_sensing",
  "longevity_influence": "unclear"
}

advisor

{
  "notes": "The model predicted \"unclear\" with low confidence (0.35), while the ground truth is \"anti_longevity.\" The model's reasoning is sound given the limited information provided - srw-100 is a poorly characterized GPCR and the model correctly identified the uncertainty around its specific ligands and downstream signaling. However, the model failed to commit to the correct answer. The mechanism class of \"deregulated_nutrient_sensing\" is speculative and not confirmed. The model's uncertainty was appropriate given the sparse annotation, but it still got the answer wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty rather than confident wrongness.",
  "failure_mode": "appropriately_uncertain",
  "answer_correct": false,
  "mechanism_correct": false,
  "reasoning_quality": 3,
  "ground_truth_questionable": false
}