ArticleNucleic acids research2023
Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An autochthonous CRISPR activation screening platform for characterizing tissue-specific oncogene selection.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- RESTRICT-seq enables time-gated CRISPR screens and uncovers novel epigenetic dependencies of SCC resistance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Genome-wide screening identifies Trim33 as an essential regulator of dendritic cell differentiation.Science immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is widely accepted that pooled library CRISPR knockout screens offer greater sensitivity and specificity than prior technologies in detecting genes whose disruption leads to fitness defects, a critical step in identifying candidate cancer targets. However, the assumption that CRISPR screens are saturating has been largely untested. Through integrated analysis of screen data in cancer cell lines generated by the Cancer Dependency Map, we show that a typical CRISPR screen has a ∼20% false negative rate, in addition to library-specific false negatives. Replicability falls sharply as gene expression decreases, while cancer subtype-specific genes within a tissue show distinct profiles compared to false negatives. Cumulative analyses across tissues improves our understanding of core essential genes and suggest only a small number of lineage-specific essential genes, enriched for transcription factors that define pathways of tissue differentiation. To recover false negatives, we introduce a method, Joint Log Odds of Essentiality (JLOE), which builds on our prior work with BAGEL to selectively rescue the false negatives without an increased false discovery rate.
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.