MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A beginner's guide to understanding and implementing the genetic modification of zebrafish

2018· review· en· W2883095167 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara A. Rafferty, T. Alexander Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCRISPRZebrafishTranscription activator-like effector nucleaseGenome editingBiologyComputational biologyForward geneticsInsertional mutagenesisGenetic screenTransgenesisCas9Transposable elementGeneticsGeneGenomePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zebrafish are a relevant and useful vertebrate model species to study normal- and patho-physiology, including that of the heart, due to conservation of protein-coding genes, organ system organisation and function, and efficient breeding and housing. Their amenability to genetic modification, particularly compared to other vertebrate species, is another great advantage, and is the focus of this review. A vast number of genetically engineered zebrafish lines and methods for their creation exist, but their incorporation into research programs is hindered by the overwhelming amount of technical details. The purpose of this paper is to provide a simplified guide to the fundamental information required by the uninitiated researcher for the thorough understanding, critical evaluation, and effective implementation of genetic approaches in the zebrafish. First, an overview of existing zebrafish lines generated through large scale chemical mutagenesis, retroviral insertional mutagenesis, and gene and enhancer trap screens is presented. Second, descriptions of commonly-used genetic modification methods are provided including Tol2 transposon, TALENs (transcription activator-like effector nucleases), and CRISPR/Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9). Lastly, design features of genetic modification strategies such as promoters, fluorescent reporters, and conditional transgenesis, are summarised. As a comprehensive resource containing both background information and technical notes of how to obtain or generate zebrafish, this review compliments existing resources to facilitate the use of genetically-modified zebrafish by researchers who are new to the 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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.033

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 head0.405
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Biophysics and Molecular BiologySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207