MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738903728 · doi:10.7554/elife.28129

CRISPR-mediated genetic interaction profiling identifies RNA binding proteins controlling metazoan fitness

2017· article· en· W2738903728 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Norris, Xicotencatl Gracida, John A. Calarco

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNIH Office of the DirectorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoNational Institutes of HealthHarvard University
KeywordsCRISPRRNA-binding proteinBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic interaction screens have aided our understanding of complex genetic traits, diseases, and biological pathways. However, approaches for synthetic genetic analysis with null-alleles in metazoans have not been feasible. Here, we present a CRISPR/Cas9-based Synthetic Genetic Interaction (CRISPR-SGI) approach enabling systematic double-mutant generation. Applying this technique in Caenorhabditis elegans, we comprehensively screened interactions within a set of 14 conserved RNA binding protein genes, generating all possible single and double mutants. Many double mutants displayed fitness defects, revealing synthetic interactions. For one interaction between the MBNL1/2 ortholog mbl-1 and the ELAVL ortholog exc-7, double mutants displayed a severely shortened lifespan. Both genes are required for regulating hundreds of transcripts and isoforms, and both may play a critical role in lifespan extension through insulin signaling. Thus, CRISPR-SGI reveals a rich genetic interaction landscape between RNA binding proteins in maintaining organismal health, and will serve as a paradigm applicable to other biological questions.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207