A high-throughput screen identifying sequence and promiscuity characteristics of the loxP spacer region in Cre-mediated recombination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cre-loxP recombination refers to the process of site-specific recombination mediated by two loxP sequences and the Cre recombinase protein. Transgenic experiments exploit integrative recombination, where a donor plasmid carrying a loxP site and DNA of interest integrate into a recipient loxP site in a target genome. Unfortunately, integrative recombination is highly inefficient because the insert is flanked by two loxP sites, which themselves become targets for Cre and lead to subsequent excision of the insert. A small number of mutations have been discovered in parts of the loxP sequence, specifically the spacer and inverted repeat segments, that increase the efficiency of integrative recombination. In this study we introduce a high-throughput in vitro assay to rapidly detect novel loxP spacer mutants and describe the sequence characteristics of successful recombinants. RESULTS: We created synthetic loxP oligonucleotides that contained a combination of inverted repeat mutations (the lox66 and lox71 mutations) and mutant spacer sequences, degenerate at 6 of the 8 positions. After in vitro Cre recombination, 3,124 recombinant clones were identified by sequencing. Included in this set were 31 unique, novel, self-recombining sequences. Using network visualization tools, we recognized 12 spacer sets with restricted promiscuity. We observed that increased guanine content at all spacer positions save for position 8 resulted in increased recombination. Interestingly, recombination between identical spacers was not preferred over non-identical spacers. We also identified a set of 16 pairs of loxP spacers that reacted at least twice with another spacer, but not themselves. Further, neither the wild-type P1 phage loxP sequence nor any of the known loxP spacer mutants appeared to be kinetically favoured by Cre recombinase. CONCLUSION: This study approached loxP spacer mutant screening in an unbiased manner, assuming nothing about candidate loxP sites save for the conserved 4 and 5 spacer positions. Candidate sites were free to recombine with any other sequence in the pool of all possible sites. The subset of loxP sites identified here are candidates for in vivo serial recombination as they have already demonstrated limited promiscuity with other loxP spacer and stability in the presence of Cre.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".