MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2414874570 · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-968-0_8

Rapid Screening of Endonuclease Target Site Preference Using a Modified Bacterial Two-Plasmid Selection

2014· article· en· W2414874570 on OpenAlexaff
Jason M. Wolfs, Benjamin P. Kleinstiver, David R. Edgell

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoming endonucleasePlasmidEndonucleaseBiologyRestriction enzymeGeneticsBacterial conjugationComputational biologyDNAMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homing endonucleases and other site-specific endonucleases have potential applications in genome editing, yet efficient targeting requires a thorough understanding of DNA-sequence specificity. Here, we describe a modified two-plasmid genetic selection in Escherichia coli that allows rapid profiling of nucleotide substitutions within a target site of given endonucleases. The selection utilizes a toxic plasmid (pTox) that encodes a DNA gyrase toxin in addition to the endonuclease target site. Cleavage of the toxic plasmid by an endonuclease expressed from a second plasmid (pEndo) facilitates growth under selective conditions. The modified protocol utilizes competent cells harboring the endonuclease expression plasmid into which target site plasmids are transformed. Replica plating on nonselective and selective media plates identifies cleavable and non-cleavable targets. Thus, a library of randomized target sites, or many individual target sites, can be analyzed using a single transformation. Both cleavable and non-cleavable targets can be analyzed by DNA sequencing to gain information about nucleotide preference in the endonuclease's target site.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.387
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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biology→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→