MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190699003 · doi:10.1089/nat.2020.0921

Transcriptome-Wide Off-Target Effects of Steric-Blocking Oligonucleotides

2021· article· en· W3190699003 on OpenAlexaff
Erle M. Holgersen, Shreshth Gandhi, Yongchao Zhou, Jin‐Kuk Kim, Brandon Vaz, Jovanka Bogojeski, Magdalena Bugno, Zvi Shalev, Kahlin Cheung-Ong, João Gonçalves, Matthew O’Hara, Ken J. Kron, Marta Verby, Mark Sun, Boyko Kakaradov, Andrew Delong, Daniele Merico, Amit G. Deshwar

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acid Therapeutics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenProvidence Health CareConcordia UniversityOntario Genomics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNA splicingIn silicoTranscriptomeAlternative splicingComputational biologyBiologyOligonucleotideFalse discovery rateExon skippingRNABioinformaticsGeneGeneticsGene expressionExon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steric-blocking oligonucleotides (SBOs) are short, single-stranded nucleic acids designed to modulate gene expression by binding to RNA transcripts and blocking access from cellular machinery such as splicing factors. SBOs have the potential to bind to near-complementary sites in the transcriptome, causing off-target effects. In this study, we used RNA-seq to evaluate the off-target differential splicing events of 81 SBOs and differential expression events of 46 SBOs. Our results suggest that differential splicing events are predominantly hybridization driven, whereas differential expression events are more common and driven by other mechanisms (including spurious experimental variation). We further evaluated the performance of in silico screens for off-target splicing events, and found an edit distance cutoff of three to result in a sensitivity of 14% and false discovery rate (FDR) of 99%. A machine learning model incorporating splicing predictions substantially improved the ability to prioritize low edit distance hits, increasing sensitivity from 4% to 26% at a fixed FDR of 90%. Despite these large improvements in performance, this approach does not detect the majority of events at an FDR <99%. Our results suggest that in silico methods are currently of limited use for predicting the off-target effects of SBOs, and experimental screening by RNA-seq should be the preferred approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations90
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acid TherapeuticsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207