ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2026
Feature representation for explainable CRISPR off-target prediction and base editing efficiency.
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making base editing accessible: Evaluating computational workflows for ABE-mediated gene knockout.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- Harnessing Deep Learning Models for Guide RNA Optimization and Off-Target Prediction in CRISPR Systems.Biotechnology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The interaction between guide RNAs (gRNAs) and target DNA sequences is a critical factor in the effectiveness of CRISPR/Cas9 (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9) gene editing. Predicting these interactions accurately necessitates models that offer biological knowledge in addition to high accuracy. This study analyzes the impact of feature representation on accuracy and interpretability in off-target prediction. Methods: We address two CRISPR applications: gene knockout (KO) and base editing (BE) using distinct benchmark datasets. For the KO problem, we utilized CHANGE-seq and GUIDE-seq to evaluate paired sequence representations, while the Hanna screening dataset has been used for BE. We approached the prediction problem both as a classification and regression task using XGBoost models. Results: In the case of KO, there is not a single universally optimal encoding. For both classification and regression, One-Hot and its variants (OH, OH5C) achieve the best results on GUIDE-seq (AUPR = 0.661, Pearson = 0.756), while the Bulges representation performs best on CHANGE-seq (AUPR = 0.612, Pearson = 0.602). In the case of BE, One-hot encoding consistently outperforms K-mer representation for predictive accuracy both as regression and classification (AUPR = 0.723, Pearson = 0.746). Discussion: Our analysis demonstrates comparable predictive performance across both gene knockout and base editing tasks, confirming the robustness of the framework in distinct editing domains. Interpretability analysis using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) reveals that despite different mechanisms, the Protospacer Adjacent Motif (PAM)-proximal region remains a critical feature for prediction for both editing mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.