Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30024886›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Correction of copy number induced false positives in CRISPR screens.

Antoine de Weck, Javad Golji, Michael D Jones, Joshua M Korn, Eric Billy, E Robert McDonald, Tobias Schmelzle, Hans Bitter, Audrey Kauffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

9 authors.

Antoine de WeckNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-6771
Javad GoljiNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Michael D JonesNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Joshua M KornNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Eric BillyNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8859-0089
E Robert McDonaldNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Tobias SchmelzleNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
Hans BitterNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Audrey KauffmannNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsArtifactsAstrocytomaBrain NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorCell ProliferationDatasets as TopicDNA Copy Number VariationsFalse Positive ReactionsGenomicsHumansModels, TheoreticalNeoplasmsStomach Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30024886
PMCPMC6067744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.