Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36699447›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Machine learning in the estimation of CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage sites for plant system.

Jutan Das, Sanjeev Kumar, Dwijesh Chandra Mishra, Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi, Ranjit Kumar Paul, Amit Kairi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jutan DasICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Sanjeev KumarICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Dwijesh Chandra MishraICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Krishna Kumar ChaturvediICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Ranjit Kumar PaulICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Amit KairiICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9 system is one of the recent most used genome editing techniques. Despite having a high capacity to alter the precise target genes and genomic regions that the planned guide RNA (or sgRNA) complements, the off-target effect still exists. But there are already machine learning algorithms for people, animals, and a few plant species. In this paper, an effort has been made to create models based on three machine learning-based techniques [namely, artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and random forests (RF)] for the prediction of the CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage sites that will be cleaved by a particular sgRNA. The plant dataset was the sole source of inspiration for all of these machine learning-based algorithms. 70% of the on-target and off-target dataset of various plant species that was gathered was used to train the models. The remaining 30% of the data set was used to evaluate the model's performance using a variety of evaluation metrics, including specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision, F1 score, F2 score, and AUC. Based on the aforementioned machine learning techniques, eleven models in all were developed. Comparative analysis of these produced models suggests that the model based on the random forest technique performs better. The accuracy of the Random Forest model is 96.27%, while the AUC value was found to be 99.21%. The SVM-Linear, SVM-Polynomial, SVM-Gaussian, and SVM-Sigmoid models were trained, making a total of six ANN-based models (ANN1-Logistic, ANN1-Tanh, ANN1-ReLU, ANN2-Logistic, ANN2-Tanh, and ANN-ReLU) and Support Vector Machine models (SVM-Linear, SVM-Polynomial, SVM-Gaussian However, the overall performance of Random Forest is better among all other ML techniques. ANN1-ReLU and SVM-Linear model performance were shown to be better among Artificial Neural Network and Support Vector Machine-based models, respectively.

Indexed as

artificial neural networkCas9CRISPRgenome editingoff-targetrandom forestSgRNAsupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID36699447
PMCPMC9868961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.