ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2020
Designing custom CRISPR libraries for hypothesis-driven drug target discovery.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-clinical safety considerations on genome editing using the CRISPR/Cas system.Genes & diseases · 2026Review
- Identifying TP53RK as a key regulator of colorectal cancer survival and a potential therapeutic target.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Revealing genetic drivers of ovarian cancer and chemoresistance: insights from whole-genome CRISPR-knockout library screens.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Clonal dynamics shaped by diverse drug-tolerant persister states in melanoma resistance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Integration of Organoids With CRISPR Screens: A Narrative Review.Biology of the cell · 2025Review
- In vivo CRISPR screening identifies geranylgeranyl diphosphate as a pancreatic cancer tumor growth dependency.Molecular metabolism · 2024Article
- Revolutionizing DNA repair research and cancer therapy with CRISPR-Cas screens.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2023Review
- A genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 screen identifies DNA-PK as a sensitiser toTheranostics · 2023Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-Induced DNA Damage Enriches for Mutations in a p53-Linked Interactome: Implications for CRISPR-Based Therapies.Cancer research · 2022Article
- Exploring liver cancer biology through functional genetic screens.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Review
- A rapid CRISPR competitive assay forComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last decade Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) has been developed into a potent molecular biology tool used to rapidly modify genes or their expression in a multitude of ways. In parallel, CRISPR-based screening approaches have been developed as powerful discovery platforms for dissecting the genetic basis of cellular behavior, as well as for drug target discovery. CRISPR screens can be designed in numerous ways. Here, we give a brief background to CRISPR screens and discuss the pros and cons of different design approaches, including unbiased genome-wide screens that target all known genes, as well as hypothesis-driven custom screens in which selected subsets of genes are targeted (Fig. 1). We provide several suggestions for how a custom screen can be designed, which could broadly serve as inspiration for any experiment that includes candidate gene selection. Finally, we discuss how results from CRISPR screens could be translated into drug development, as well as future trends we foresee in the rapidly evolving CRISPR screen field.
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.