MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387965927 · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.13881

CRISPR‐based diagnostics detects invasive insect pests

2023· article· en· W4387965927 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. R. Shashank, Brandon M. Parker, Santosh R. Rananaware, David Plotkin, Christian Couch, Lilia G. Yang, Long Thành Nguyễn, W. Evan Braswell, Piyush Jain, Akito Y. Kawahara

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthIndian Council of Agricultural ResearchU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyCRISPRComputational biologyIdentification (biology)Molecular diagnosticsBiotechnologyGeneGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid identification of organisms is essential for many biological and medical disciplines, from understanding basic ecosystem processes, disease diagnosis, to the detection of invasive pests. CRISPR-based diagnostics offers a novel and rapid alternative to other identification methods and can revolutionize our ability to detect organisms with high accuracy. Here we describe a CRISPR-based diagnostic developed with the universal cytochrome-oxidase 1 gene (CO1). The CO1 gene is the most sequenced gene among Animalia, and therefore our approach can be adopted to detect nearly any animal. We tested the approach on three difficult-to-identify moth species (Keiferia lycopersicella, Phthorimaea absoluta and Scrobipalpa atriplicella) that are major invasive pests globally. We designed an assay that combines recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) with CRISPR for signal generation. Our approach has a much higher sensitivity than real-time PCR assays and achieved 100% accuracy for identification of all three species, with a detection limit of up to 120 fM for P. absoluta and 400 fM for the other two species. Our approach does not require a sophisticated laboratory, reduces the risk of cross-contamination, and can be completed in less than 1 h. This work serves as a proof of concept that has the potential to revolutionize animal detection and monitoring.

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)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology ResourcesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207