Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian genetic circuits have demonstrated the potential to sense and treat a wide range of disease states, but optimization of the levels of circuit components remains challenging and labor-intensive. To accelerate this process, our lab developed poly-transfection, a high-throughput extension of traditional mammalian transfection. In poly-transfection, each cell in the transfected population essentially performs a different experiment, testing the behavior of the circuit at different DNA copy numbers and allowing users to analyze a large number of stoichiometries in a single-pot reaction. So far, poly-transfections that optimize ratios of three-component circuits in a single well of cells have been demonstrated; in principle, the same method can be used for the development of even larger circuits. Poly-transfection results can be easily applied to find optimal ratios of DNA to co-transfect for transient circuits or to choose expression levels for circuit components for the generation of stable cell lines. Here, we demonstrate the use of poly-transfection to optimize a three-component circuit. The protocol begins with experimental design principles and explains how poly-transfection builds upon traditional co-transfection methods. Next, poly-transfection of cells is carried out and followed by flow cytometry a few days later. Finally, the data is analyzed by examining slices of the single-cell flow cytometry data that correspond to subsets of cells with certain component ratios. In the lab, poly-transfection has been used to optimize cell classifiers, feedback and feedforward controllers, bistable motifs, and many more. This simple but powerful method speeds up design cycles for complex genetic circuits in mammalian cells.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.515 | 0.361 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".