Using traditional machine learning and deep learning methods for on- and off-target prediction in CRISPR/Cas9: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9) is a popular and effective two-component technology used for targeted genetic manipulation. It is currently the most versatile and accurate method of gene and genome editing, which benefits from a large variety of practical applications. For example, in biomedicine, it has been used in research related to cancer, virus infections, pathogen detection, and genetic diseases. Current CRISPR/Cas9 research is based on data-driven models for on- and off-target prediction as a cleavage may occur at non-target sequence locations. Nowadays, conventional machine learning and deep learning methods are applied on a regular basis to accurately predict on-target knockout efficacy and off-target profile of given single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs). In this paper, we present an overview and a comparative analysis of traditional machine learning and deep learning models used in CRISPR/Cas9. We highlight the key research challenges and directions associated with target activity prediction. We discuss recent advances in the sgRNA-DNA sequence encoding used in state-of-the-art on- and off-target prediction models. Furthermore, we present the most popular deep learning neural network architectures used in CRISPR/Cas9 prediction models. Finally, we summarize the existing challenges and discuss possible future investigations in the field of on- and off-target prediction. Our paper provides valuable support for academic and industrial researchers interested in the application of machine learning methods in the field of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it