Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Mol Syst Biol. 2014 Jul 1;10:733. doi: 10.15252/msb.20145216.

Measuring error rates in genomic perturbation screens: gold standards for human functional genomics.

Author information

  • 1Donnelly Centre and Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • 2Campbell Family Cancer Research Institute, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • 3Campbell Family Cancer Research Institute, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • 4Donnelly Centre and Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada j.moffat@utoronto.ca.

Abstract

Technological advancement has opened the door to systematic genetics in mammalian cells. Genome-scale loss-of-function screens can assay fitness defects induced by partial gene knockdown, using RNA interference, or complete gene knockout, using new CRISPR techniques. These screens can reveal the basic blueprint required for cellular proliferation. Moreover, comparing healthy to cancerous tissue can uncover genes that are essential only in the tumor; these genes are targets for the development of specific anticancer therapies. Unfortunately, progress in this field has been hampered by off-target effects of perturbation reagents and poorly quantified error rates in large-scale screens. To improve the quality of information derived from these screens, and to provide a framework for understanding the capabilities and limitations of CRISPR technology, we derive gold-standard reference sets of essential and nonessential genes, and provide a Bayesian classifier of gene essentiality that outperforms current methods on both RNAi and CRISPR screens. Our results indicate that CRISPR technology is more sensitive than RNAi and that both techniques have nontrivial false discovery rates that can be mitigated by rigorous analytical methods.

KEYWORDS:

CRISPR; RNAi; cancer; essential genes; shRNA

PMID:
24987113
PMCID:
PMC4299491
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center