Deep learning models incorporating endogenous factors beyond DNA sequences improve the prediction accuracy of base editing outcomes
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
Adenine base editors (ABEs) and cytosine base editors (CBEs) enable the single nucleotide editing of targeted DNA sites avoiding generation of double strand breaks, however, the genomic features that influence the outcomes of base editing in vivo still remain to be characterized. High-throughput datasets from lentiviral integrated libraries were used to investigate the sequence features affecting base editing outcomes, but the effects of endogenous factors beyond the DNA sequences are still largely unknown. Here the base editing outcomes of ABE and CBE were evaluated in mammalian cells for 5012 endogenous genomic sites and 11,868 genome-integrated target sequences, with 4654 genomic sites sharing the same target sequences. The comparative analyses revealed that the editing outcomes of ABE and CBE at endogenous sites were substantially different from those obtained using genome-integrated sequences. We found that the base editing efficiency at endogenous target sites of both ABE and CBE was influenced by endogenous factors, including epigenetic modifications and transcriptional activity. A deep-learning algorithm referred as BE_Endo, was developed based on the endogenous factors and sequence information from our genomic datasets, and it yielded unprecedented accuracy in predicting the base editing outcomes. These findings along with the developed computational algorithms may facilitate future application of BEs for scientific research and clinical gene therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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