[ergothus]

You're dismissing the idea of (1) proving the "obvious" solution or disproving it via data, and you're ignoring the "how". "There are errors" doesn't say where they are errors, and how those errors translate into behavior. If the hypothesis in the source article is help up by more data, that is actually a huge deal, not just confirming something we already knew.

[nonbel]

The review I shared contains many ideas along these lines. Basically the AA sequences seem to be selected to disfavor aggregation, so most mutations should increase formation:

>"Many of the characteristics of proteins that enable the avoidance of aggregation, and amyloid formation in particular, are encoded by their amino acid sequences116. The elucidation of this code has enabled the identification of factors that determine the intrinsic aggregation propensity of these molecules117–119. Hence, it has been realized that globular proteins fold into structures that sequester aggregation-prone regions in their interior; in addition, typical features of the folding process, such as very high cooperativity, generate considerable kinetic barriers to the conversion of folded proteins into aggregation-prone species50,120. Furthermore, specific patterns of residues, such as alternating hydrophobic–hydrophilic stretches50,121, that tend to favour the amyloid state are commonly selected against during evolution119,121,122 or are otherwise neutralized by the insertion of highly aggregation-resistant residues, which are known as ‘gatekeepers’ (REFS 50,123)."

Really I doubt in the end there will be any disease not associated with amyloid/aggregate formation.