In Vivo CRISPR/Cas9 Screening to Simultaneously Evaluate Gene Function in Mouse Skin and Oral Cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetically modified mouse models (GEMM) have been instrumental in assessing gene function, modeling human diseases, and serving as preclinical model to assess therapeutic avenues. However, their time-, labor- and cost-intensive nature limits their utility for systematic analysis of gene function. Recent advances in genome-editing technologies overcome those limitations and allow for the rapid generation of specific gene perturbations directly within specific mouse organs in a multiplexed and rapid manner. Here, we describe a CRISPR/Cas9-based method (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) to generate thousands of gene knock-out clones within the epithelium of the skin and oral cavity of mice, and provide a protocol detailing the steps necessary to perform a direct in vivo CRISPR screen for tumor suppressor genes. This approach can be applied to other organs or other CRISPR/Cas9 technologies such as CRISPR-activation or CRISPR-inactivation to study the biological function of genes during tissue homeostasis or in various disease settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".