ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Optimal methods for analyzing targeted pairwise knockout screens.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Synthetic lethality offers a promising strategy for cancer treatment by targeting genetic vulnerabilities unique to tumor cells, leading to selective tumor cell death. However, single-gene knockout screens often miss functional redundancy due to paralog genes. Multiplex CRISPR systems, including various Cas9 and Cas12a platforms, have been developed to assay genetic interactions, yet no systematic comparison of method to identify synthetic lethality from CRISPR screens has been conducted. Results: We evaluated data from four in4mer CRISPR/Cas12a screens in cancer cell lines, using three bioinformatic approaches to identify synthetic lethal interactions: delta log fold change (dLFC), Z-transformed dLFC (ZdLFC), and rescaled dLFC (RdLFC). Both ZdLFC and RdLFC provided more consistent identification of synthetic lethal pairs across cell lines compared to the unscaled dLFC method. Conclusions: The ZdLFC method offers a robust framework for scoring synthetic lethal interactions from paralog screens, providing consistent results across different cell lines without requiring a training set of known positive interactors.
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.