MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Discovery, Mechanisms, and Evolutionary Impact of Anti-CRISPRs

2017· review· en· W2616853239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Virology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCRISPRBiologyTrans-activating crRNAArchaeaPlasmidGeneticsFunction (biology)Computational biologyGeneDNAGenome editingRNABacteriophageEscherichia coli

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacteria and archaea use CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems to defend themselves from infection by bacteriophages (phages). These RNA-guided nucleases are powerful weapons in the fight against foreign DNA, such as phages and plasmids, as well as a revolutionary gene editing tool. Phages are not passive bystanders in their interactions with CRISPR-Cas systems, however; recent discoveries have described phage genes that inhibit CRISPR-Cas function. More than 20 protein families, previously of unknown function, have been ascribed anti-CRISPR function. Here, we discuss how these CRISPR-Cas inhibitors were discovered and their modes of action were elucidated. We also consider the potential impact of anti-CRISPRs on bacterial and phage evolution. Finally, we speculate about the future of this field.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.381 · 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