MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982038705 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12829-8

Genome-wide microhomologies enable precise template-free editing of biologically relevant deletion mutations

2019· article· en· W2982038705 on OpenAlexafffund
Janin Grajcarek, Jean Monlong, Yoko Nishinaka‐Arai, Michiko Nakamura, Miki Nagai, Shiori Matsuo, David R. Lougheed, Hidetoshi Sakurai, Megumu K. Saito, Guillaume Bourque, Knut Woltjen

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario GenomicsMcGill University
FundersJapan Agency for Medical Research and DevelopmentCompute CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsGenome editingBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyGeneHomologous recombinationCas9CRISPRNucleaseDNA repairHuman genomeGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The functional effect of a gene edit by designer nucleases depends on the DNA repair outcome at the targeted locus. While non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) repair results in various mutations, microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) creates precise deletions based on the alignment of flanking microhomologies (µHs). Recently, the sequence context surrounding nuclease-induced double strand breaks (DSBs) has been shown to predict repair outcomes, for which µH plays an important role. Here, we survey naturally occurring human deletion variants and identify that 11 million or 57% are flanked by µHs, covering 88% of protein-coding genes. These biologically relevant mutations are candidates for precise creation in a template-free manner by MMEJ repair. Using CRISPR-Cas9 in human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs), we efficiently create pathogenic deletion mutations for demonstrable disease models with both gain- and loss-of-function phenotypes. We anticipate this dataset and gene editing strategy to enable functional genetic studies and drug screening.

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)0.001
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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207