MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413529471 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-539-8_8

Targeted Gene Deletion in Aspergillus fumigatus Using the Hygromycin-Resistance Split-Marker Approach

2012· article· en· W2413529471 on OpenAlexafffund
Fabrice N. Gravelat, David S. Askew, Donald C. Sheppard

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyTransformation (genetics)Homologous recombinationHygromycin BMarker geneGeneGeneticsRecombinationMutantAspergillus fumigatusProtoplastMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of a fungal strain that lacks a specific gene product is often accomplished by replacing the gene of interest with a selection marker using site-specific recombination. Transformation of Aspergillus fumigatus, like many related fungal species, must overcome two major obstacles. First, the cell wall limits the entry of exogenous DNA, and second, a high rate of nonhomologous recombination leads to random ectopic integration of the marker. Here, we describe an experimental strategy that has been successfully used to overcome these challenges through protoplast transformation with split-marker cassettes. Each cassette is constructed to contain sequences flanking the gene of interest fused to an incomplete fragment of a dominant selection marker. The resistance marker is only functional if both fragments undergo recombination to regenerate an intact resistance cassette. This event is favored by the proximity of the DNA constructs that arises as a result of homologous recombination between the target-gene sequences in the deletion construct with the fungal chromosome. A similar strategy can be employed using a second resistance marker to complement the deletion mutant with an intact allele of the gene of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207