Perturbing proteomes at single residue resolution using base editing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Base editors derived from CRISPR-Cas9 systems and DNA editing enzymes offer an unprecedented opportunity for the precise modification of genes, but have yet to be used at a genome-scale throughput. Here, we test the ability of an editor based on a cytidine deaminase, the Target-AID base editor, to systematically modify genes genome-wide using the set of yeast essential genes. We tested the effect of mutating around 17,000 individual sites in parallel across more than 1,500 genes in a single experiment. We identified over 1,100 sites at which mutations have a significant impact on fitness. Using previously determined and preferred Target-AID mutational outcomes, we predicted the protein variants caused by each of these gRNAs. We found that gRNAs with significant effects on fitness are enriched in variants predicted to be deleterious by independent methods based on site conservation and predicted protein destabilization. Finally, we identify key features to design effective gRNAs in the context of base editing. Our results show that base editing is a powerful tool to identify key amino acid residues at the scale of proteomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".