ArticleBMC genomics2026
Variation in guide RNA library representation results in gene effect score bias in genome-wide CRISPR screens.
Article in BMC genomics, 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.
- CRISPR Technologies in Type 2 Diabetes: From Mechanistic Insights to Therapeutic Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome wide CRISPR-based perturbation screens are powerful discovery tools enabling the identification of novel gene dependencies through either gain or loss of function. While genome wide guide RNA (gRNA) libraries have advantages when using enAsCas12a, such as multiplex single gRNAs per gene, they may be subject to similar confounding factors that can affect the interpretation of large genome-wide datasets. Here, we examine the impact of these variables in over twenty enAsCas12a multiple gRNA based perturbation screens performed using Humagne C, Humagne D and Inzolia libraries in human cells, as well as external datasets containing Cas9-based CRISPR library screens, including from DepMap. We demonstrate that the choice of CRISPR library is often the most significant factor that influences genetic perturbation results, outweighing other variables such as either target cell lines or culture media conditions. A potential contributor to this effect is gRNA representation within a given CRISPR library, where lower gRNA representation can lead to variable and more pronounced gene effect scores using either log fold change or Chronos analysis. These effects may be mitigated by using either multiple gRNA constructs per gene, by optimisation of CRISPR library production processes or by targeting with multiple independent gRNA libraries. Importantly, we also propose strategies for addressing gRNA representation bias during CRISPR screen hit prioritisation. CRISPR library gRNA representation dependent bias remains a major challenge in the interpretation of gene essentiality in perturbation screens.
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.