MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004467187 · doi:10.1242/jeb.218198

How to turn an organism into a model organism in 10 ‘easy’ steps

2020· review· en· W3004467187 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin J. Matthews, Leslie B. Vosshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsModel organismBiologyOrganismCRISPRDrosophila melanogasterCaenorhabditis elegansDrosophila (subgenus)GeneticsGenomeComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Many of the major biological discoveries of the 20th century were made using just six species: Escherichia coli bacteria, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe yeast, Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes, Drosophila melanogaster flies and Mus musculus mice. Our molecular understanding of the cell division cycle, embryonic development, biological clocks and metabolism were all obtained through genetic analysis using these species. Yet the ‘big 6’ did not start out as genetic model organisms (hereafter ‘model organisms’), so how did they mature into such powerful systems? First, these model organisms are abundant human commensals: they are the bacteria in our gut, the yeast in our beer and bread, the nematodes in our compost pile, the flies in our kitchen and the mice in our walls. Because of this, they are cheaply, easily and rapidly bred in the laboratory and in addition were amenable to genetic analysis. How and why should we add additional species to this roster? We argue that specialist species will reveal new secrets in important areas of biology and that with modern technological innovations like next-generation sequencing and CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, the time is ripe to move beyond the big 6. In this review, we chart a 10-step path to this goal, using our own experience with the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which we built into a model organism for neurobiology in one decade. Insights into the biology of this deadly disease vector require that we work with the mosquito itself rather than modeling its biology in another species.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.010

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations129
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207