Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27261176›Full record

ArticleAnalytical biochemistry2017

Genome-scale CRISPR pooled screens.

Neville E Sanjana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical biochemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Scaling perturbations: beyond genome-scale CRISPR screens.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. CRISPR Technology and Its Emerging Applications.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Using Genomics to Identify Novel Therapeutic Targets for Aortic Disease.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The use of base editing technology to characterize single nucleotide variants.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Review
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

1 author.

Neville E SanjanaNew York Genome Center, New York, NY 10013, USA; Center for Genomics and Systems Biology, Department of Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA. Electronic address: nsanjana@nygenome.org.

Funding

Genome engineering tools for functional screening of non-coding elementsR00HG008171 · NHGRI · NEW YORK GENOME CENTER · PI SANJANA, NEVILLE · 2016 to 2018
$733k
Genome engineering tools for functional screening of non-coding elementsK99HG008171 · NHGRI · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI SANJANA, NEVILLE · 2015 to 2016
$125k
NHGRI NIH HHS K99 HG008171NHGRI NIH HHS R00 HG008171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome editing technologies such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) systems have ushered in a new era of targeted DNA manipulation. The easy programmability of CRISPR using short oligonucleotides enables rapid synthesis of large-scale libraries for functional genetic screens. Here we present fundamental concepts and methods for pooled CRISPR screens and review biological results from recent genome-scale loss-of-function and gain-of-function screens. We also discuss new frontiers in pooled screens, including novel effector domains for functional screens and applications in the noncoding genome.

Indexed as

Genetic EngineeringGenome, HumanCRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingGene TargetingHumansRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsCancerCas9CRISPRGenetic screensGenome engineeringNoncoding

Identifiers

PMID27261176
PMCPMC5133192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.