MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147137656 · doi:10.3390/molecules26072053

Synergizing Off-Target Predictions for In Silico Insights of CENH3 Knockout in Cannabis through CRISPR/Cas

2021· article· en· W3147137656 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Hesami, Mohsen Yoosefzadeh-Najafabadi, Kristian Adamek, Davoud Torkamaneh, Andrew Maxwell Phineas Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRISPRIn silicoSupport vector machineReceiver operating characteristicRandom forestComputer scienceComputational biologyClassifier (UML)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas-mediated genome editing system has recently been used for haploid production in plants. Haploid induction using the CRISPR/Cas system represents an attractive approach in cannabis, an economically important industrial, recreational, and medicinal plant. However, the CRISPR system requires the design of precise (on-target) single-guide RNA (sgRNA). Therefore, it is essential to predict off-target activity of the designed sgRNAs to avoid unexpected outcomes. The current study is aimed to assess the predictive ability of three machine learning (ML) algorithms (radial basis function (RBF), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF)) alongside the ensemble-bagging (E-B) strategy by synergizing MIT and cutting frequency determination (CFD) scores to predict sgRNA off-target activity through in silico targeting a histone H3-like centromeric protein, HTR12, in cannabis. The RF algorithm exhibited the highest precision, recall, and F-measure compared to all the tested individual algorithms with values of 0.61, 0.64, and 0.62, respectively. We then used the RF algorithm as a meta-classifier for the E-B method, which led to an increased precision with an F-measure of 0.62 and 0.66, respectively. The E-B algorithm had the highest area under the precision recall curves (AUC-PRC; 0.74) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC-ROC; 0.71), displaying the success of using E-B as one of the common ensemble strategies. This study constitutes a foundational resource of utilizing ML models to predict gRNA off-target activities in cannabis.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207