CRISPR‐Net: A Recurrent Convolutional Network Quantifies CRISPR Off‐Target Activities with Mismatches and Indels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The off‐target effects induced by guide RNAs in the CRISPR/Cas9 gene‐editing system have raised substantial concerns in recent years. Many in silico predictive models have been developed for predicting the off‐target activities; however, few are capable of predicting the off‐target activities with insertions or deletions between guide RNA and target DNA sequence pair. In order to fill this gap, a recurrent convolutional network named CRISPR‐Net is developed for scoring the gRNA‐target pairs with mismatches and indels; and a machine‐learning based model named CRISPR‐Net‐Aggregate is also developed for aggregating the scores as the consensus off‐target score for each potential guide RNA. It is demonstrated that CRISPR‐Net achieves competitive performance on CIRCLE‐Seq and GUIDE‐seq datasets with indels and mismatches, outperforming the state‐of‐the‐art off‐target prediction methods on two independent mismatch‐only datasets. The CRISPR‐Net‐Aggregate also surpasses a competing method on the aggregation task. Moreover, a two‐stage sensitivity analysis is introduced to visualize the CRISPR‐Net prediction on the gRNA‐target pair of interest, demonstrating how implicit knowledge encoded in CRISPR‐Net contributes to the accurate off‐target activity quantification. Finally, the source code is made available at the Code Ocean repository ( https://codeocean.com/capsule/9553651/tree/v1 ).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".