Predicting adenine base editing efficiencies in different cellular contexts by deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenine base editors (ABEs) enable the conversion of A•T to G•C base pairs. Since the sequence of the target locus influences base editing efficiency, efforts have been made to develop computational models that can predict base editing outcomes based on the targeted sequence. However, these models were trained on base editing datasets generated in cell lines and their predictive power for base editing in primary cells in vivo remains uncertain. RESULTS: In this study, we conduct base editing screens using SpRY-ABEmax and SpRY-ABE8e to target 2,195 pathogenic mutations with a total of 12,000 guide RNAs in cell lines and in the murine liver. We observe strong correlations between in vitro datasets generated by ABE-mRNA electroporation into HEK293T cells and in vivo datasets generated by adeno-associated virus (AAV)- or lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-mediated nucleoside-modified mRNA delivery (Spearman R = 0.83-0.92). We subsequently develop BEDICT2.0, a deep learning model that predicts adenine base editing efficiencies with high accuracy in cell lines (R = 0.60-0.94) and in the liver (R = 0.62-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our work confirms that adenine base editing holds considerable potential for correcting a large fraction of pathogenic mutations. We also provide BEDICT2.0 - a robust computational model that helps identify sgRNA-ABE combinations capable of achieving high on-target editing with minimal bystander effects in both in vitro and in vivo settings.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".