MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Manipulation of 7-Finger Zinc Finger Nuclease Increases the Efficiency of Genome Editing in Human Cells

2025· article· en· W4415397430 on OpenAlexaff
Shota Katayama, Masahiro Watanabe, Wataru Nomura, Takashi Yamamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Bio & Med Chem Au · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
FundersCo-creation place formation support programFoundation of Kinoshita Memorial Enterprise
KeywordsZinc finger nucleaseGenome editingTranscription activator-like effector nucleaseZinc fingerGenomeEffector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome editing tools have great potential for medicinal use. Among them, zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) are smaller in size than transcriptional activator-like effector nucleases and CRISPR-Cas9. Therefore, ZFNs are easily packed into a viral vector with limited cargo space, including adeno-associated viral vectors. Furthermore, because ZFN patents expired in 2020, high patent royalties are not required for application. Although functional 6-finger ZFNs can be easily prepared by modular assembly, it has been extremely difficult to produce functional 7-finger ZFNs, which are expected to have higher target specificity than 6-finger ZFNs in some cases. Herein we describe the construction of 7-finger ZFNs and the improvement in genome editing efficiency, which is generally lower in 7-finger ZFNs than in 6-finger ZFNs. Modular assembly of 7-finger ZFNs was achieved using a specific mutation, and the original genome editing efficiency was increased by up to 19%. Furthermore, 7-finger ZFNs showed reduced off-target effects, exhibiting higher target specificity than the corresponding 6-finger ZFNs. Our study provides critical insights for safer and more specific genome editing.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Bio & Med Chem AuSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207