MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017151347 · doi:10.1139/g2012-049

Homing endonucleases: DNA scissors on a mission

2012· review· en· W2017151347 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed Hafez, Georg Hausner

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHoming endonucleaseBiologyHoming (biology)GenomeTranscription activator-like effector nucleaseGeneticsComputational biologyGenome editingENCODEGroup I catalytic intronGeneDNAZinc finger nucleaseRNA splicingRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buried within the genomes of many microorganisms are genetic elements that encode rare-cutting homing endonucleases that assist in the mobility of the elements that encode them, such as the self-splicing group I and II introns and in some cases inteins. There are several different families of homing endonucleases and their ability to initiate and target specific sequences for lateral transfers makes them attractive reagents for gene targeting. Homing endonucleases have been applied in promoting DNA modification or genome editing such as gene repair or "gene knockouts". This review examines the categories of homing endonucleases that have been described so far and their possible applications to biotechnology. Strategies to engineer homing endonucleases to alter target site specificities will also be addressed. Alternatives to homing endonucleases such as zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, triplex forming oligonucleotide nucleases, and targetrons are also briefly discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207