Comparing CRISPR‐Cas and qPCR eDNA assays for the detection of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Molecular techniques offer sensitive, specific, noninvasive monitoring of target species from a variety of environmental samples. We recently developed a CRISPR‐Cas‐based eDNA assay for rapid single‐species detection as a route to a simple, cost‐effective biosensor device. CRISPR‐Cas‐based diagnostic assays use isothermal conditions in combination with a highly specific sequence recognition system. This CRISPR‐Cas assay was designed to target Salmo salar , and we previously demonstrated its utility in eDNA samples from sites in Ireland. The aim of this study was to validate our assay in two larger sample sets from Canada ( n = 16/ n = 63) in comparison with an independent S. salar qPCR assay. We demonstrate that overall, the CRISPR‐Cas assay performs similarly to qPCR for assessing the presence or absence of S. salar from eDNA and provides a viable alternative approach where qPCR assay design and application have proven to be challenging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".