Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37612728›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2023

Partial gene suppression improves identification of cancer vulnerabilities when CRISPR-Cas9 knockout is pan-lethal.

J Michael Krill-Burger, Joshua M Dempster, Ashir A Borah, Brenton R Paolella, David E Root, Todd R Golub, Jesse S Boehm, William C Hahn, James M McFarland, Francisca Vazquez and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Uncovering cancer dependencies in peptide-interacting protein pockets.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J Michael Krill-BurgerBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joshua M DempsterBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ashir A BorahBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Brenton R PaolellaBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
David E RootBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Todd R GolubBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jesse S BoehmBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
William C HahnBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
James M McFarlandBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Francisca VazquezBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. vazquez@broadinstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2857-4685
Aviad TsherniakBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Broad Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHundreds of functional genomic screens have been performed across a diverse set of cancer contexts, as part of efforts such as the Cancer Dependency Map, to identify gene dependencies-genes whose loss of function reduces cell viability or fitness. Recently, large-scale screening efforts have shifted from RNAi to CRISPR-Cas9, due to superior efficacy and specificity. However, many effective oncology drugs only partially inhibit their protein targets, leading us to question whether partial suppression of genes using RNAi could reveal cancer vulnerabilities that are missed by complete knockout using CRISPR-Cas9. Here, we compare CRISPR-Cas9 and RNAi dependency profiles of genes across approximately 400 matched cancer cell lines.

resultsWe find that CRISPR screens accurately identify more gene dependencies per cell line, but the majority of each cell line's dependencies are part of a set of 1867 genes that are shared dependencies across the entire collection (pan-lethals). While RNAi knockdown of about 30% of these genes is also pan-lethal, approximately 50% have selective dependency patterns across cell lines, suggesting they could still be cancer vulnerabilities. The accuracy of the unique RNAi selectivity is supported by associations to multi-omics profiles, drug sensitivity, and other expected co-dependencies.

conclusionsIncorporating RNAi data for genes that are pan-lethal knockouts facilitates the discovery of a wider range of gene targets than could be detected using the CRISPR dataset alone. This can aid in the interpretation of contrasting results obtained from CRISPR and RNAi screens and reinforce the importance of partial gene suppression methods in building a cancer dependency map.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsNeoplasmsCell LineGenetic TechniquesHumansRNA InterferenceCancer genomicsCRISPR-Cas9 genome editingCRISPR-Cas systemsDrug discoveryFunctional genomicsRNAiTarget identification

Identifiers

PMID37612728
PMCPMC10464129
OpenAlexW4386092372

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.