MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic Engineering Using Homologous Recombination

2002· review· en· W2155690692 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Donald L. Court, James A. Sawitzke, Lynn C. Thomason

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsRecombineeringHomologous recombinationBiologyFLP-FRT recombinationGeneticsNon-allelic homologous recombinationRecombinationGenetic recombinationPlasmidHomologous chromosomeChromosomeCre-Lox recombinationBacterial artificial chromosomeComputational biologyGeneGenomeTransgene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few years, in vivo technologies have emerged that, due to their efficiency and simplicity, may one day replace standard genetic engineering techniques. Constructs can be made on plasmids or directly on the Escherichia coli chromosome from PCR products or synthetic oligonucleotides by homologous recombination. This is possible because bacteriophage-encoded recombination functions efficiently recombine sequences with homologies as short as 35 to 50 base pairs. This technology, termed recombineering, is providing new ways to modify genes and segments of the chromosome. This review describes not only recombineering and its applications, but also summarizes homologous recombination in E. coli and early uses of homologous recombination to modify the bacterial chromosome. Finally, based on the premise that phage-mediated recombination functions act at replication forks, specific molecular models are proposed.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0020.005

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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations517
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of GeneticsSame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207