Daily Papers

The introduction of genome engineering technology has transformed biomedical research, making it possible to make precise changes to genetic information. However, creating an efficient gene-editing system requires a deep understanding of CRISPR technology, and the complex experimental systems under investigation. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in various tasks, they often lack specific knowledge and struggle to accurately solve biological design problems. In this work, we introduce CRISPR-GPT, an LLM agent augmented with domain knowledge and external tools to automate and enhance the design process of CRISPR-based gene-editing experiments. CRISPR-GPT leverages the reasoning ability of LLMs to facilitate the process of selecting CRISPR systems, designing guide RNAs, recommending cellular delivery methods, drafting protocols, and designing validation experiments to confirm editing outcomes. We showcase the potential of CRISPR-GPT for assisting non-expert researchers with gene-editing experiments from scratch and validate the agent's effectiveness in a real-world use case. Furthermore, we explore the ethical and regulatory considerations associated with automated gene-editing design, highlighting the need for responsible and transparent use of these tools. Our work aims to bridge the gap between beginner biological researchers and CRISPR genome engineering techniques, and demonstrate the potential of LLM agents in facilitating complex biological discovery tasks.

Many biological discovery problems require experiments to be selected sequentially under constrained budgets. CRISPR screening is a prominent example, as exhaustive perturbation testing is often infeasible and candidate perturbations must instead be prioritized over multiple experimental rounds. Despite the importance of this problem, existing benchmarks for adaptive hit discovery remain limited in scale and diversity. Here, we introduce AssayBench-Loop, a large-scale benchmark for adaptive hit discovery comprising 1,389 CRISPR screens across five phenotype categories. Beyond enabling systematic evaluation, its scale makes it possible to learn acquisition strategies across historical experiments. Building on this resource, we introduce AssayLoop, a sequential experimental design framework combining AssayFormer, a transformer-based amortized acquisition policy trained across historical screens to adapt from experimental feedback, with LLM-derived biological priors through an adaptive handoff. In this view, completed experiments become training data for learning how accumulated evidence should guide what to test next, while LLMs provide prior biological knowledge to seed the search. We further introduce AssayLLM, showing that the same principle can be extended directly to an LLM through task-specific post-training. On temporally held-out screens, AssayLoop achieves a 5.67-fold enrichment over random selection and recovers 27.7% of hits after assaying approximately 5% of the candidate library, outperforming existing adaptive-design methods and standalone LLMs, and AssayFormer alone. Performance improves with increasing historical training data and transfers to phenotype categories excluded from training. These results demonstrate the value of learning acquisition policies across historical experiments and combining them with broad biological priors for efficient adaptive hit discovery.

Single-cell CRISPR screens summarize each perturbation by how far cells move from their unperturbed state, averaging over cell-to-cell variation. Whether the cells moved together is not captured: two perturbations with identical effect magnitude can differ qualitatively, one driving cells along a shared trajectory, the other scattering them around the same mean. We define SheshaP coherence (S_p), the mean cosine similarity between individual cell displacement vectors and their mean, and ask what it adds across six Perturb-seq datasets (2,285 perturbations; CRISPRa, CRISPRi, Cas9 knockout). Coherence and effect magnitude are closely coupled (Spearman ρ=0.84--0.98), and the coupling persists in a foundation-model embedding, under alternative effect-size definitions, and when analysis is restricted to responding cells. Associations reported without conditioning on effect size largely recover it, shown here for two comparisons that vanish under conditioning. Effect size accounts for 89--96\% of coherence variance; within the remainder, coherence is negatively associated with apoptosis and p53 signalling in the two largest screens. Two standard responder classifiers agree on only 68\% of cells. Directional coherence is largely a restatement of effect magnitude, and heterogeneity measures should report their redundancy with effect size as a matter of course. S_p is implemented in the open-source shesha-geometry Python package.

AI evaluation can support the wrong inference when an in-domain benchmark success does not survive distribution shift, or when the benchmark endpoint is entangled with a design factor. We study this problem in CRISPRi perturbation-effect prediction, evaluating a frozen Geneformer representation under a locked, pre-registered protocol: heads and model selection were frozen before test evaluation; the protocol required external outcome labels to remain withheld until final unblinding; and analysis-governing decisions were fixed before the evaluations they govern. In-distribution on the Virtual Cell Challenge (VCC), the frozen representation carries measurable predictive information beyond a dimension-matched random-feature control (Delta R^2 = +0.1645, 95% CI [+0.1375, +0.1920]), satisfying the pre-registered informativeness gate required before interpreting transfer. It then fails zero-shot transfer on both external screens (Spearman rho = -0.139 and -0.267), lying below that control on each. Adding a predefined magnitude block improves the representation externally (Delta rho = +0.032 and +0.143) but, under the frozen primary head, does not rescue transfer: both remain negative. A pre-registered, count-adjusted max-response secondary is positively associated with the outcome on both screens; we report it as correlational and secondary, not as a recovered magnitude signal. Finally, the VCC endpoint is strongly sample-size associated: a count-only linear model reaches R^2 = +0.4325, versus +0.2589 for the four magnitude scalars; adding those scalars to cell count improves R^2 by only +0.0017, so much of the aggregate-magnitude signal overlaps with cell count. This case study shows how locking the evaluation, harmonizing the measured endpoint, and separating primary from secondary evidence can change the inference supported by an AI benchmark.