Cargando…

Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE

It is widely accepted that pooled library CRISPR knockout screens offer greater sensitivity and specificity than prior technologies in detecting genes whose disruption leads to fitness defects, a critical step in identifying candidate cancer targets. However, the assumption that CRISPR screens are s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dede, Merve, Hart, Traver
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9976895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36727483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad046
_version_ 1784899175114080256
author Dede, Merve
Hart, Traver
author_facet Dede, Merve
Hart, Traver
author_sort Dede, Merve
collection PubMed
description It is widely accepted that pooled library CRISPR knockout screens offer greater sensitivity and specificity than prior technologies in detecting genes whose disruption leads to fitness defects, a critical step in identifying candidate cancer targets. However, the assumption that CRISPR screens are saturating has been largely untested. Through integrated analysis of screen data in cancer cell lines generated by the Cancer Dependency Map, we show that a typical CRISPR screen has a ∼20% false negative rate, in addition to library-specific false negatives. Replicability falls sharply as gene expression decreases, while cancer subtype-specific genes within a tissue show distinct profiles compared to false negatives. Cumulative analyses across tissues improves our understanding of core essential genes and suggest only a small number of lineage-specific essential genes, enriched for transcription factors that define pathways of tissue differentiation. To recover false negatives, we introduce a method, Joint Log Odds of Essentiality (JLOE), which builds on our prior work with BAGEL to selectively rescue the false negatives without an increased false discovery rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9976895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99768952023-03-02 Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE Dede, Merve Hart, Traver Nucleic Acids Res Computational Biology It is widely accepted that pooled library CRISPR knockout screens offer greater sensitivity and specificity than prior technologies in detecting genes whose disruption leads to fitness defects, a critical step in identifying candidate cancer targets. However, the assumption that CRISPR screens are saturating has been largely untested. Through integrated analysis of screen data in cancer cell lines generated by the Cancer Dependency Map, we show that a typical CRISPR screen has a ∼20% false negative rate, in addition to library-specific false negatives. Replicability falls sharply as gene expression decreases, while cancer subtype-specific genes within a tissue show distinct profiles compared to false negatives. Cumulative analyses across tissues improves our understanding of core essential genes and suggest only a small number of lineage-specific essential genes, enriched for transcription factors that define pathways of tissue differentiation. To recover false negatives, we introduce a method, Joint Log Odds of Essentiality (JLOE), which builds on our prior work with BAGEL to selectively rescue the false negatives without an increased false discovery rate. Oxford University Press 2023-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9976895/ /pubmed/36727483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad046 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Computational Biology
Dede, Merve
Hart, Traver
Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title_full Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title_fullStr Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title_full_unstemmed Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title_short Recovering false negatives in CRISPR fitness screens with JLOE
title_sort recovering false negatives in crispr fitness screens with jloe
topic Computational Biology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9976895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36727483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad046
work_keys_str_mv AT dedemerve recoveringfalsenegativesincrisprfitnessscreenswithjloe
AT harttraver recoveringfalsenegativesincrisprfitnessscreenswithjloe