MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050097902 · doi:10.3109/07388551.2011.593503

Advances in directed molecular evolution of reporter genes

2011· review· en· W2050097902 on OpenAlexaff
Ai‐Sheng Xiong, Ri‐He Peng, Jing Zhuang, Jim Davies, Jian Zhang, Quan‐Hong Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biotechnology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirected evolutionReporter geneComputational biologyDNA shufflingGeneBiologyDirected Molecular EvolutionTransgeneFunction (biology)Molecular evolutionGreen fluorescent proteinGeneticsGenomeGene expressionMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many reporter genes, such as gfp, gusA, and lacZ, are widely used for research into plants, animals, and microorganisms. Reporter genes, which offer high levels of sensitivity and convenience of detection, have been utilized in transgenic technology, promoter analysis, drug screening, and other areas. Directed molecular evolution is a powerful molecular tool for the creation of designer proteins for industrial and research applications, including studies of protein structure and function. Directed molecular evolution is based mainly on in vitro recombination methods, such as error-prone PCR and DNA shuffling. The strategies of directed evolution of enzyme biocatalysts have been the subject of several recent reviews. Here, we briefly summarize successes in the field of directed molecular evolution of reporter genes and discuss some of the applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in BiotechnologySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207