Mapping DNA damage‐dependent genetic interactions in yeast via party mating and barcode fusion genetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Condition‐dependent genetic interactions can reveal functional relationships between genes that are not evident under standard culture conditions. State‐of‐the‐art yeast genetic interaction mapping, which relies on robotic manipulation of arrays of double‐mutant strains, does not scale readily to multi‐condition studies. Here, we describe barcode fusion genetics to map genetic interactions (BFG‐GI), by which double‐mutant strains generated via en masse “party” mating can also be monitored en masse for growth to detect genetic interactions. By using site‐specific recombination to fuse two DNA barcodes, each representing a specific gene deletion, BFG‐GI enables multiplexed quantitative tracking of double mutants via next‐generation sequencing. We applied BFG‐GI to a matrix of DNA repair genes under nine different conditions, including methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), 4‐nitroquinoline 1‐oxide (4NQO), bleomycin, zeocin, and three other DNA‐damaging environments. BFG‐GI recapitulated known genetic interactions and yielded new condition‐dependent genetic interactions. We validated and further explored a subnetwork of condition‐dependent genetic interactions involving MAG1 , SLX4, and genes encoding the Shu complex, and inferred that loss of the Shu complex leads to an increase in the activation of the checkpoint protein kinase Rad53.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".