MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234521185 · doi:10.1101/pdb.top084111

Construction of Multifragment Plasmids by Homologous Recombination in Yeast

2015· article· en· W2234521185 on OpenAlexafffund
Jolanda van Leeuwen, Brenda Andrews, Charles Boone, Guihong Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Protocols · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsHomologous recombinationPlasmidCloning (programming)Saccharomyces cerevisiaeGeneticsYeastGenomeIn vitro recombinationFLP-FRT recombinationBiologyComputational biologyDNAHomologous chromosomeInsert (composites)GeneMolecular cloningRecombinationGenetic recombinationComputer sciencePeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, the focus of cloning has shifted from constructing plasmids that express a single gene of interest to creating multigenic constructs that contain entire pathways or even whole genomes. Traditional cloning methods that rely on restriction digestion and ligation are limited by the number and size of fragments that can efficiently be combined. Here, we focus on the use of homologous-recombination-based DNA manipulation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the construction of plasmids from multiple DNA fragments. Owing to its simplicity and high efficiency, cloning by homologous recombination in yeast is very accessible and can be applied to high-throughput construction procedures. Its applications extend beyond yeast-centered purposes and include the cloning of large mammalian DNA sequences and entire bacterial genomes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor ProtocolsSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207