ArticleGenome research2026
Tree reconstruction guarantees from CRISPR-Cas9 lineage tracing data using Neighbor-Joining.
Article in Genome research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Can you trust your reconstructed lineage tree? A homoplasy-based approach for irreversible evolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9-based lineage tracing technologies have enabled the reconstruction of single-cell phylogenies from transcriptional readouts. However, developing tree-reconstruction algorithms with theoretical guarantees in this setting is challenging. In this work, we derive a reconstruction algorithm with theoretical guarantees using Neighbor-Joining (NJ) on distances that are moment-matched to estimate the true tree distances. We develop a series of tools to analyze this algorithm and prove its theoretical guarantees. When the parameters of the data generating process are known and there is no missing data, our results align with established results from common evolutionary models, such as Cavender-Farris-Neyman and Jukes-Cantor. However, to account for the realistic case where the parameters of the data generating process are not known and there is missing data, we develop new theory that shows for the first time that it is still possible to obtain reconstruction guarantees in the CRISPR-Cas9 case and in other models of evolution. Empirically, we show on both simulated lineage tracing data and on real data from a mouse model of lung cancer the improved performance of our method as compared to the traditional use of NJ.
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.