ArticleCells2024
Systematic Comparison of CRISPR and shRNA Screens to Identify Essential Genes Using a Graph-Based Unsupervised Learning Model.
Article in Cells, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic control of telomeric RNA maintains heterochromatin in telomerase-driven cancers.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Article
- A novel role for Neurog2 in MYCN driven neuroendocrine plasticity of prostate cancer.Oncogene · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generally, essential genes identified using shRNA and CRISPR are not always the same, raising questions about the choice between these two screening platforms. To address this, we systematically compared the performance of CRISPR and shRNA to identify essential genes across different gene expression levels in 254 cell lines. As both platforms have a notable false positive rate, to correct this confounding factor, we first developed a graph-based unsupervised machine learning model to predict common essential genes. Furthermore, to maintain the unique characteristics of individual cell lines, we intersect essential genes derived from the biological experiment with the predicted common essential genes. Finally, we employed statistical methods to compare the ability of these two screening platforms to identify essential genes that exhibit differential expression across various cell lines. Our analysis yielded several noteworthy findings: (1) shRNA outperforms CRISPR in the identification of lowly expressed essential genes; (2) both screening methodologies demonstrate strong performance in identifying highly expressed essential genes but with limited overlap, so we suggest using a combination of these two platforms for highly expressed essential genes; (3) notably, we did not observe a single gene that becomes universally essential across all cancer cell lines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.