MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378781294 · doi:10.1111/febs.16876

Efficient <scp>CRISPR</scp> /Cas9 mediated large insertions using long single‐stranded oligonucleotide donors in <i>C. elegans</i>

2023· article· en· W4378781294 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Eroglu, Bin Yu, W. Brent Derry

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCRISPROligonucleotideCas9Caenorhabditis elegansBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly efficient generation of deletions, substitutions, and small insertions (up to ~ 150 bp) into the Caenorhabditis elegans genome by CRISPR/Cas9 has been facilitated by the use of single-stranded oligonucleotide donors as repair templates. However, insertion of larger sequences such as fluorescent markers and other functional domains remains challenging due to uncertainty of optimal performance between single-stranded or double-stranded repair templates and labor-intensive as well as inefficient protocols for their preparations. Here, we simplify the generation of long ssDNA as donors in CRISPR/Cas9. High yields of ssDNA can be rapidly generated using a standard PCR followed by a single enzymatic digest with lambda exonuclease. Comparison of long ssDNA donors obtained using this method to dsDNA demonstrates orders of magnitude increased insertion frequency for ssDNA donors. This can be leveraged to simultaneously generate multiple large insertions as well as successful edits without the use of selection or co-conversion (co-CRISPR) markers when necessary. Our approach complements the CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit for C. elegans to enable highly efficient insertion of longer sequences with a simple, standardized, and labor-minimal protocol.

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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS JournalSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207