Expanding the flexibility of base editing for high-throughput genetic screens in bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide screens have become powerful tools for elucidating genotype-to-phenotype relationships in bacteria. Of the varying techniques to achieve knockout and knockdown, CRISPR base editors are emerging as promising options. However, the limited number of available, efficient target sites hampers their use for high-throughput screening. Here, we make multiple advances to enable flexible base editing as part of high-throughput genetic screening in bacteria. We first co-opt the Streptococcus canis Cas9 that exhibits more flexible protospacer-adjacent motif recognition than the traditional Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9. We then expand beyond introducing premature stop codons by mutating start codons. Next, we derive guide design rules by applying machine learning to an essentiality screen conducted in Escherichia coli. Finally, we rescue poorly edited sites by combining base editing with Cas9-induced cleavage of unedited cells, thereby enriching for intended edits. The efficiency of this dual system was validated through a conditional essentiality screen based on growth in minimal media. Overall, expanding the scope of genome-wide knockout screens with base editors could further facilitate the investigation of new gene functions and interactions in bacteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".