MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133919091 · doi:10.1039/d1nr00438g

A novel method to detect mutation in DNA by utilizing exponential amplification reaction triggered by the CRISPR-Cas9 system

2021· article· en· W3133919091 on OpenAlexaff
Jayeon Song, Soohyun Kim, Hyo Yong Kim, Kyung Hoon Hur, Yoosik Kim, Hyun Gyu Park

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
KeywordsCRISPRDNACas9Computational biologyBiologyGeneticsMolecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We, herein, describe a novel method to detect mutation in DNA by utilizing exponential amplification reaction (EXPAR) triggered by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9, called CRISPR-EXPAR. The CRISPR system consisting of two Cas9/sgRNA complexes was designed to cut out a specific mutation region within the target DNA, which would consequently promote EXPAR by continuously repeated extension and nicking reactions. As a consequence, a large number of final EXPAR products, which can be monitored through duplex-specific fluorescent staining, are produced. Based on this design principle, we successfully identified a model target mutation within the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene down to 437 aM with excellent specificity. The practical capability of this method was verified by reliably identifying the target mutation directly from the genomic DNA (gDNA) extracted from the lung cancer cell line, NCI-H1781 (H1781), and its universal applicability was further confirmed by identifying another EFGF L858R mutation. This technique could serve as a new isothermal platform to identify various mutations by rationally redesigning single guide RNA (sgRNA) according to the target mutation site.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscaleSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207