A Guide to Computational Tools and Design Strategies for Genome Editing Experiments in Zebrafish Using CRISPR/Cas9
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 technology for mainstream biotechnological use based on its discovery as an adaptive immune mechanism in bacteria has dramatically improved the ability of molecular biologists to modify genomes of model organisms. The zebrafish is highly amenable to applications of CRISPR/Cas9 for mutation generation and a variety of DNA insertions. Cas9 protein in complex with a guide RNA molecule recognizes where to cut the homologous DNA based on a short stretch of DNA termed the protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM). Rapid and efficient identification of target sites immediately preceding PAM sites, quantification of genomic occurrences of similar (off target) sites and predictions of cutting efficiency are some of the features where computational tools play critical roles in CRISPR/Cas9 applications. Given the rapid advent and development of this technology, it can be a challenge for researchers to remain up to date with all of the important technological developments in this field. We have contributed to the armamentarium of CRISPR/Cas9 bioinformatics tools and trained other researchers in the use of appropriate computational programs to develop suitable experimental strategies. Here we provide an in-depth guide on how to use CRISPR/Cas9 and other relevant computational tools at each step of a host of genome editing experimental strategies. We also provide detailed conceptual outlines of the steps involved in the design and execution of CRISPR/Cas9-based experimental strategies, such as generation of frameshift mutations, larger chromosomal deletions and inversions, homology-independent insertion of gene cassettes and homology-based knock-in of defined point mutations and larger gene constructs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.047 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".