MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979865448 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51090-3

A one-step tRNA-CRISPR system for genome-wide genetic interaction mapping in mammalian cells

2019· article· en· W2979865448 on OpenAlexafffund
Yulei Zhao, Kathrin Tyrishkin, Calvin Sjaarda, Prem Khanal, Jeff Stafford, Michael J. Rauh, Xudong Liu, Tomas Babak, Xiaolong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersTerry Fox FoundationCure Brain Cancer FoundationGovernment of CanadaCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQuébec Consortium for Drug DiscoveryEuropean Hematology Association
KeywordsCRISPRComputational biologyGeneGenomeBiologyGenome editingBarcodeGenetic screenDrug discoveryGeneticsComputer scienceBioinformaticsPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping genetic interactions in mammalian cells is limited due to technical obstacles. Here we describe a method called TCGI (tRNA-CRISPR for genetic interactions) to generate a high-efficient, barcode-free and scalable pairwise CRISPR libraries in mammalian cells for identifying genetic interactions. We have generated a genome- wide library to identify genes genetically interacting with TAZ in cell viability regulation. Validation of candidate synergistic genes reveals the screening accuracy of 85% and TAZ-MCL1 is characterized as combinational drug targets for non-small cell lung cancer treatments. TCGI has dramatically improved the current methods for mapping genetic interactions and screening drug targets for combinational therapies.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207