Better data for better predictions: data curation improves deep learning for sgRNA/Cas9 prediction


Abstract

The Cas9 enzyme, along with a single guide RNA molecule, is a modular tool for genetic engineering and has shown effectiveness as a species-specific anti-microbial. The ability to accurately predict on-target cleavage is critical as activity varies by target. Using the sgRNA nucleotide sequence and an activity score, predictive models have been developed, with the best performance resulting from deep learning architectures. Prior work has emphasized robust and novel architectures to improve predictive performance. Here, we explore the impact of a data-centric approach through optimization of the input target site adjacent nucleotide sequence length and the use of data filtering for read counts in the control conditions to improve input data utility. Using the existing crisprHAL architecture, we develop crisprHAL Tev, a best-in-class bacterial SpCas9 prediction model with performance that generalizes between related species and across data types. During this process, we also rebuild two prior E. coli Cas9 datasets, demonstrating the importance of data quality, and resulting in the production of an improved bacterial eSpCas9 prediction model. The crisprHAL models are available through GitHub (https://github.com/tbrowne/crisprHAL).
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].