MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409727666 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.16.649183

ChromeCRISPR - A High Efficacy Hybrid Machine Learning Model for CRISPR/Cas On-Target Predictions

2025· preprint· en· W4409727666 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirhossein Daneshpajouh, Megan Fowler, Kay C. Wiese

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsCRISPRComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyMachine learningBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genome editing has the potential to treat genetic disorders at the source. This can be achieved by modifying the defective DNA through the intentional insertion, deletion, or substitution of genomic content. Among all genome editing technologies, CRISPR/Cas (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR-associated protein) is considered the gold standard. CRISPR/Cas uses a single guide RNA (sgRNA) to direct the Cas nuclease to a target DNA region. Due to the ease at creating small RNA molecules, it is possible to have the CRISPR/Cas complex target any arbitrary DNA sequence, thus making it a versatile tool. The efficacy of the complex is dependent on the ability of the sgRNA to bind to a complementary DNA sequence, which varies based on the sequence. Thus, a major challenge is finding sgRNA sequences that have good efficacy. This is where computational models can aid scientists: by predicting the activity of sgRNAs to help narrow the search space of finding the optimal sgRNA. We have used a large new dataset to build and compare the ability of several different machine learning architectures’ ability to predict on-target CRISPR/Cas activity. Additionally, we explored how adding GC content affects our sgRNA activity predictions. Our novel hybrid model, ChromeCRISPR, combines the strengths of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) with Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) models, has outperformed state-of-the-art models, including DeepHF and AttCrispr, establishing a new benchmark for predictive accuracy in CRISPR/Cas9 efficacy predictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→