Comparison of CRISPR–Cas9 Tools for Transcriptional Repression and Gene Disruption in the BEVS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generation of knock-out viruses using recombineering of bacmids has greatly accelerated scrutiny of baculovirus genes for a variety of applications. However, the CRISPR–Cas9 system is a powerful tool that simplifies sequence-specific genome editing and effective transcriptional regulation of genes compared to traditional recombineering and RNAi approaches. Here, the effectiveness of the CRISPR–Cas9 system for gene disruption and transcriptional repression in the BEVS was compared. Cell lines constitutively expressing the cas9 or dcas9 gene were developed, and recombinant baculoviruses delivering the sgRNA were evaluated for disruption or repression of a reporter green fluorescent protein gene. Finally, endogenous AcMNPV genes were targeted for disruption or downregulation to affect gene expression and baculovirus replication. This study provides a proof-of-concept that CRISPR–Cas9 technology may be an effective tool for efficient scrutiny of baculovirus genes through targeted gene disruption and transcriptional repression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".