Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A benchmark of computational methods for correcting biases of established and unknown origin in CRISPR-Cas9 screening data
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A benchmark of computational methods for correcting biases of established and unknown origin in CRISPR-Cas9 screening data
Do you wish to request the book?
A benchmark of computational methods for correcting biases of established and unknown origin in CRISPR-Cas9 screening data
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A benchmark of computational methods for correcting biases of established and unknown origin in CRISPR-Cas9 screening data
2024
Overview
Background
CRISPR-Cas9 dropout screens are formidable tools for investigating biology with unprecedented precision and scale. However, biases in data lead to potential confounding effects on interpretation and compromise overall quality. The activity of Cas9 is influenced by structural features of the target site, including copy number amplifications (CN bias). More worryingly, proximal targeted loci tend to generate similar gene-independent responses to CRISPR-Cas9 targeting (proximity bias), possibly due to Cas9-induced whole chromosome-arm truncations or other genomic structural features and different chromatin accessibility levels.
Results
We benchmarked eight computational methods, rigorously evaluating their ability to reduce both CN and proximity bias in the two largest publicly available cell-line-based CRISPR-Cas9 screens to date. We also evaluated the capability of each method to preserve data quality and heterogeneity by assessing the extent to which the processed data allows accurate detection of true positive essential genes, established oncogenetic addictions, and known/novel biomarkers of cancer dependency.
Our analysis sheds light on the ability of each method to correct biases under different scenarios. AC-Chronos outperforms other methods in correcting both CN and proximity biases when jointly processing multiple screens of models with available CN information, whereas CRISPRcleanR is the top performing method for individual screens or when CN information is not available. In addition, Chronos and AC-Chronos yield a final dataset better able to recapitulate known sets of essential and non-essential genes.
Conclusions
Overall, our investigation provides guidance for the selection of the most appropriate bias-correction method, based on its strengths, weaknesses and experimental settings.
Publisher
BioMed Central,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
