srw-20
C. elegans
G-protein coupled receptors family 1 profile domain-containing protein
What the model saw
Gene: srw-20 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
srw-20 encodes a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) of the rhodopsin/family 1 class with peptide ligand binding activity. GPCRs in C. elegans are broadly involved in chemosensory signaling, neuroendocrine communication, and nutrient sensing, all of which can intersect with longevity pathways such as insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS) or neuropeptide-mediated lifespan regulation. However, the srw (serpentine receptor, class w) family is large and functionally diverse, and without knowledge of the specific ligand, downstream G-protein coupling partner, or tissue expression context, it is not possible to confidently assign a pro- or anti-longevity role. The peptide receptor activity could modulate IIS or other nutrient-sensing axes, but could equally mediate sensory or reproductive signaling with no direct longevity consequence. The functional annotations alone are too non-specific to resolve the direction of influence.
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" with low confidence (0.35), while the ground truth is "anti_longevity." The model's reasoning is plausible given the limited functional annotations provided — srw-20 is a GPCR with peptide receptor activity, and the model correctly notes the srw family is large and functionally diverse. However, the model failed to commit to a direction. The mechanism class of "deregulated_nutrient_sensing" is speculative and not confirmed by the ground truth. The model's uncertainty is understandable given the sparse information, but it still got the answer wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty leading to an incorrect prediction rather than a confident wrong answer.
Raw API responses
solver
{
"reasoning": "srw-20 encodes a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) of the rhodopsin/family 1 class with peptide ligand binding activity. GPCRs in C. elegans are broadly involved in chemosensory signaling, neuroendocrine communication, and nutrient sensing, all of which can intersect with longevity pathways such as insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS) or neuropeptide-mediated lifespan regulation. However, the srw (serpentine receptor, class w) family is large and functionally diverse, and without knowledge of the specific ligand, downstream G-protein coupling partner, or tissue expression context, it is not possible to confidently assign a pro- or anti-longevity role. The peptide receptor activity could modulate IIS or other nutrient-sensing axes, but could equally mediate sensory or reproductive signaling with no direct longevity consequence. The functional annotations alone are too non-specific to resolve the direction of influence.",
"confidence": 0.35,
"key_pathways": [
"G protein-coupled receptor signaling",
"neuropeptide signaling",
"insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS)"
],
"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 plausible given the limited functional annotations provided — srw-20 is a GPCR with peptide receptor activity, and the model correctly notes the srw family is large and functionally diverse. However, the model failed to commit to a direction. The mechanism class of \"deregulated_nutrient_sensing\" is speculative and not confirmed by the ground truth. The model's uncertainty is understandable given the sparse information, but it still got the answer wrong. This is a case of appropriate uncertainty leading to an incorrect prediction rather than a confident wrong answer.",
"failure_mode": "appropriately_uncertain",
"answer_correct": false,
"mechanism_correct": false,
"reasoning_quality": 2,
"ground_truth_questionable": false
}