MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416257247 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335863

Improved CRISPR/Cas9 off-target prediction with DNABERT and epigenetic features

2025· article· en· W4416257247 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kenji Satou

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsUniversity of Tokyo
KeywordsInterpretabilityLeverage (statistics)EpigeneticsDeep learningEpigenomeGenomicsGenomeBenchmark (surveying)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CRISPR/Cas9 is a powerful genome editing tool, but its clinical application is hindered by off-target effects. Accurate computational prediction of these unintended edits is crucial for ensuring the safety and efficacy of therapeutic applications. While various deep learning models have been developed, most are trained only on task-specific data, failing to leverage the vast knowledge embedded in entire genomes. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel approach that integrates DNABERT, a deep learning model pre-trained on the human genome, with epigenetic features (H3K4me3, H3K27ac, and ATAC-seq). We conducted a comprehensive benchmark of our model, DNABERT-Epi, against five state-of-the-art methods across seven distinct off-target datasets. Our results demonstrate that the pre-trained DNABERT-based models achieve competitive or even superior performance. Rigorous ablation studies quantitatively confirmed that both genomic pre-training and the integration of epigenetic features are critical factors that significantly enhance predictive accuracy. Furthermore, by applying advanced interpretability techniques (SHAP and Integrated Gradients), we identified the specific epigenetic marks and sequence-level patterns that influence the model's predictions, offering insights into its decision-making process. This study is the first to establish the significant potential of a pre-trained DNA foundation model for CRISPR/Cas9 off-target prediction. Our findings underscore that leveraging both large-scale genomic knowledge and multi-modal data is a key strategy for advancing the development of safer genome editing tools.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→