ArticleGenome biology2025
Z-scores outperform similar methods for analyzing CRISPR paralog synthetic lethality screens.
Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Combinatorial Knockout CRISPR Screens with GRAPE: Genetic interaction Regression Analysis of Pairwise Effects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Quantitative analysis of genetic interactions in human cells from genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screens.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Functional modules predict cancer-relevant genetic interactions in mammalian cells.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking genetic interaction scoring methods for identifying synthetic lethality from combinatorial CRISPR screens.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Z-scores outperform similar methods for analyzing CRISPR paralog synthetic lethality screens.Genome biology · 2025Article
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
Genetic screens offer a promising strategy for identifying tumor-specific therapeutic targets, but single-gene knockout screens often miss functionally redundant paralogs. Multiplex Cas9 and Cas12a CRISPR systems have been deployed to assay genetic interactions, but analysis pipelines vary considerably. Here we evaluate data from four in4mer CRISPR/Cas12a screens in cancer cell lines, using delta log fold change, Z-transformed dLFC, and rescaled dLFC approaches to identify synthetic lethal interactions. Both ZdLFC and RdLFC provide more consistent identification of synthetic lethal pairs across cell lines compared to the unscaled dLFC method, while ZdLFC benefits from not requiring a training set of known interactors.
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.