ArticlePLoS computational biology2018
Correction of copy number induced false positives in CRISPR screens.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weaponizing CRISPR/Cas9 for selective elimination of cells with an aberrant genome.DNA repair · 2025Article
- Rapid and robust validation of pooled CRISPR knockout screens using CelFi.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Genome-wide CRISPR guide RNA design and specificity analysis with GuideScan2.Genome biology · 2025Article
- A benchmark of computational methods for correcting biases of established and unknown origin in CRISPR-Cas9 screening data.Genome biology · 2024Article
- An interactive web application for processing, correcting, and visualizing genome-wide pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screens.Cell reports methods · 2023Article
- Article
- Chronos: a cell population dynamics model of CRISPR experiments that improves inference of gene fitness effects.Genome biology · 2021Article
- CRISPRi screens reveal a DNA methylation-mediated 3D genome dependent causal mechanism in prostate cancer.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Combined gene essentiality scoring improves the prediction of cancer dependency maps.EBioMedicine · 2019Article
- GEMINI: a variational Bayesian approach to identify genetic interactions from combinatorial CRISPR screens.Genome biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell autonomous cancer dependencies are now routinely identified using CRISPR loss-of-function viability screens. However, a bias exists that makes it difficult to assess the true essentiality of genes located in amplicons, since the entire amplified region can exhibit lethal scores. These false-positive hits can either be discarded from further analysis, which in cancer models can represent a significant number of hits, or methods can be developed to rescue the true-positives within amplified regions. We propose two methods to rescue true positive hits in amplified regions by correcting for this copy number artefact. The Local Drop Out (LDO) method uses the relative lethality scores within genomic regions to assess true essentiality and does not require additional orthogonal data (e.g. copy number value). LDO is meant to be used in screens covering a dense region of the genome (e.g. a whole chromosome or the whole genome). The General Additive Model (GAM) method models the screening data as a function of the known copy number values and removes the systematic effect from the measured lethality. GAM does not require the same density as LDO, but does require prior knowledge of the copy number values. Both methods have been developed with single sample experiments in mind so that the correction can be applied even in smaller screens. Here we demonstrate the efficacy of both methods at removing the copy number effect and rescuing hits from some of the amplified regions. We estimate a 70-80% decrease of false positive hits with either method in regions of high copy number compared to no correction.
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.