Pooled Genome-Scale CRISPR Screens in Single Cells

Literature Cited

1. 1.

   Adamson B, Norman TM, Jost M, Cho MY, Nuñez JK et al. 2016. A multiplexed single-cell CRISPR screening platform enables systematic dissection of the unfolded protein response. Cell 167:1867–82.e21
   [Google Scholar]
2. 2.

   Adamson B, Norman TM, Jost M, Weissman JS. 2018. Approaches to maximize sgRNA-barcode coupling in Perturb-seq screens. bioRxiv 298349. https://doi.org/10.1101/298349
3. 3.

   Alerasool N, Segal D, Lee H, Taipale M. 2020. An efficient KRAB domain for CRISPRi applications in human cells. Nat. Methods 17:1093–96
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4.

   Andrews TS, Kiselev VY, McCarthy D, Hemberg M. 2021. Tutorial: guidelines for the computational analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing data. Nat. Protoc. 16:1–9
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5.

   Anzalone AV, Koblan LW, Liu DR. 2020. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38:824–44
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6.

   Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR, Sousa AA, Koblan LW et al. 2019. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576:149–57
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7.

   Behan FM, Iorio F, Picco G, Goncalves E, Beaver CM et al. 2019. Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR-Cas9 screens. Nature 568:511–16
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8.

   Bock C, Datlinger P, Chardon F, Coelho MA, Dong MTB et al. 2022. High-content CRISPR screening. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2:8
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9.

   Bodapati S, Daley TP, Lin X, Zou J, Qi LS. 2020. A benchmark of algorithms for the analysis of pooled CRISPR screens. Genome Biol 21:62
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10.

    Cao J, Packer JS, Ramani V, Cusanovich DA, Huynh C et al. 2017. Comprehensive single-cell transcriptional profiling of a multicellular organism. Science 357:661–67
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11.

    Cetin R, Wegner M, Luwisch L, Saud S, Achmedov T et al. 2023. Optimized metrics for orthogonal combinatorial CRISPR screens. Sci. Rep 13:7405
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12.

    Chen PJ, Liu DR. 2023. Prime editing for precise and highly versatile genome manipulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24:161–77
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13.

    Cheng J, Lin G, Wang T, Wang Y, Guo W et al. 2023. Massively parallel CRISPR-based genetic perturbation screening at single-cell resolution. Adv. Sci. 10:e2204484
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14.

    Cheng L, Li YC, Qi Q, Xu P, Feng RP et al. 2021. Single-nucleotide-level mapping of DNA regulatory elements that control fetal hemoglobin expression. Nat. Genet. 53:869–80
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15.

    Cleary B, Cong L, Cheung A, Lander ES, Regev A. 2017. Efficient generation of transcriptomic profiles by random composite measurements. Cell 171:1424–36.e18
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16.

    Colic M, Hart T. 2021. Common computational tools for analyzing CRISPR screens. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 5:779–88
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17.

    Cossarizza A, Chang H-D, Radbruch A, Acs A, Adam D et al. 2019. Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition). Eur. J. Immunol. 49:1457–973
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18.

    Datlinger P, Rendeiro AF, Schmidl C, Krausgruber T, Traxler P et al. 2017. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14:297–301
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19.

    de Boer CG, Ray JP, Hacohen N, Regev A. 2020. MAUDE: inferring expression changes in sorting-based CRISPR screens. Genome Biol 21:134
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20.

    Dede M, McLaughlin M, Kim E, Hart T. 2020. Multiplex enCas12a screens detect functional buffering among paralogs otherwise masked in monogenic Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol 21:262
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21.

    Deshpande R, Nelson J, Simpkins SW, Costanzo M, Piotrowski JS et al. 2017. Efficient strategies for screening large-scale genetic interaction networks. bioRxiv 159632. https://doi.org/10.1101/159632
22. 22.

    Dixit A, Parnas O, Li B, Chen J, Fulco CP et al. 2016. Perturb-seq: dissecting molecular circuits with scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled genetic screens. Cell 167:1853–66.e17
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23.

    Doench JG. 2018. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user's guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19:67–80
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24.

    Doench JG, Fusi N, Sullender M, Hegde M, Vaimberg EW et al. 2016. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nature Biotechnol 34:184–91
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25.

    Drager NM, Sattler SM, Huang CT, Teter OM, Leng K et al. 2022. A CRISPRi/a platform in human iPSC-derived microglia uncovers regulators of disease states. Nat. Neurosci. 25:1149–62
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26.

    Erwood S, Bily TMI, Lequyer J, Yan J, Gulati N et al. 2022. Saturation variant interpretation using CRISPR prime editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 40:885–95
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27.

    Feldman D, Singh A, Garrity AJ, Blainey PC. 2018. Lentiviral co-packaging mitigates the effects of intermolecular recombination and multiple integrations in pooled genetic screens. bioRxiv 262121. https://doi.org/10.1101/262121
    [Crossref]
28. 28.

    Feldman D, Singh A, Schmid-Burgk JL, Carlson RJ, Mezger A et al. 2019. Optical pooled screens in human cells. Cell 179:787–99.e17
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29.

    Findlay GM, Boyle EA, Hause RJ, Klein JC, Shendure J. 2014. Saturation editing of genomic regions by multiplex homology-directed repair. Nature 513:120–23
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30.

    Fleck JS, Jansen SMJ, Wollny D, Zenk F, Seimiya M et al. 2022. Inferring and perturbing cell fate regulomes in human brain organoids. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05279-8
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
31. 31.

    Frangieh CJ, Melms JC, Thakore PI, Geiger-Schuller KR, Ho P et al. 2021. Multimodal pooled Perturb-CITE-seq screens in patient models define mechanisms of cancer immune evasion. Nat. Genet. 53:332–41
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32.

    Funk L, Su KC, Ly J, Feldman D, Singh A et al. 2022. The phenotypic landscape of essential human genes. Cell 185:4634–53.e22
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33.

    Gasperini M, Hill AJ, McFaline-Figueroa JL, Martin B, Kim S et al. 2019. A genome-wide framework for mapping gene regulation via cellular genetic screens. Cell 176:377–90
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34.

    Gayoso A, Lopez R, Xing G, Boyeau P, Valiollah Pour Amiri V et al. 2022. A Python library for probabilistic analysis of single-cell omics data. Nat. Biotechnol. 40:163–66
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35.

    Geiger-Schuller K, Eraslan B, Kuksenko O, Dey KK, Jagadeesh KA et al. 2023. Systematically characterizing the roles of E3-ligase family members in inflammatory responses with massively parallel Perturb-seq. bioRxiv 2023.01.23.525198. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.23.525198
36. 36.

    Gier RA, Budinich KA, Evitt NH, Cao Z, Freilich ES et al. 2020. High-performance CRISPR-Cas12a genome editing for combinatorial genetic screening. Nat. Commun. 11:3455
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37.

    Guna A, Page KR, Replogle JR, Esantsi TK, Wang ML et al. 2023. A dual sgRNA library design to probe genetic modifiers using genome-wide CRISPRi screens. bioRxiv 2023.01.22.525086. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.22.525086
    [Crossref]
38. 38.

    Hao Y, Hao S, Andersen-Nissen E, Mauck WM 3rd, Zheng S et al. 2021. Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data. Cell 184:3573–87.e29
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39.

    Hasle N, Cooke A, Srivatsan S, Huang H, Stephany JJ et al. 2020. High-throughput, microscope-based sorting to dissect cellular heterogeneity. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16:e9442
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40.

    Heumos L, Schaar AC, Lance C, Litinetskaya A, Drost F et al. 2023. Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24:550–72
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41.

    Hill AJ, McFaline-Figueroa JL, Starita LM, Gasperini MJ, Matreyek KA et al. 2018. On the design of CRISPR-based single-cell molecular screens. Nat. Methods 15:271–74
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42.

    Hilton IB, D'Ippolito AM, Vockley CM, Thakore PI, Crawford GE et al. 2015. Epigenome editing by a CRISPR-Cas9-based acetyltransferase activates genes from promoters and enhancers. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:510–17
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43.

    Horlbeck MA, Gilbert LA, Villalta JE, Adamson B, Pak RA et al. 2016. Compact and highly active next-generation libraries for CRISPR-mediated gene repression and activation. eLife 5:e19760
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44.

    Hou J, Liang S, Xu C, Wei Y, Wang Y et al. 2022. Single-cell CRISPR immune screens reveal immunological roles of tumor intrinsic factors. NAR Cancer 4:zcac038
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45.

    Hou Y, Guo H, Cao C, Li X, Hu B et al. 2016. Single-cell triple omics sequencing reveals genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic heterogeneity in hepatocellular carcinomas. Cell Res 26:304–19
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46.

    Huang TP, Newby GA, Liu DR. 2021. Precision genome editing using cytosine and adenine base editors in mammalian cells. Nat. Protoc. 16:1089–128
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47.

    Hwang B, Lee DS, Tamaki W, Sun Y, Ogorodnikov A et al. 2021. SCITO-seq: single-cell combinatorial indexed cytometry sequencing. Nat. Methods 18:903–11
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48.

    Ibraheim R, Tai PWL, Mir A, Javeed N, Wang J et al. 2021. Self-inactivating, all-in-one AAV vectors for precision Cas9 genome editing via homology-directed repair in vivo. Nat. Commun. 12:6267
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49.

    Jaitin DA, Kenigsberg E, Keren-Shaul H, Elefant N, Paul F et al. 2014. Massively parallel single-cell RNA-seq for marker-free decomposition of tissues into cell types. Science 343:776–79
    [Google Scholar]
50. 50.

    Jaitin DA, Weiner A, Yofe I, Lara-Astiaso D, Keren-Shaul H et al. 2016. Dissecting immune circuits by linking CRISPR-pooled screens with single-cell RNA-seq. Cell 167:1883–96.e15
    [Google Scholar]
51. 51.

    Jin X, Simmons SK, Guo A, Shetty AS, Ko M et al. 2020. In vivo Perturb-Seq reveals neuronal and glial abnormalities associated with autism risk genes. Science 370:eaaz6063
    [Google Scholar]
52. 52.

    Kamimoto K, Stringa B, Hoffmann CM, Jindal K, Solnica-Krezel L, Morris SA. 2023. Dissecting cell identity via network inference and in silico gene perturbation. Nature 614:742–51
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53.

    Kampmann M. 2018. CRISPRi and CRISPRa screens in mammalian cells for precision biology and medicine. ACS Chem. Biol. 13:406–16
    [Google Scholar]
54. 54.

    Kanfer G, Sarraf SA, Maman Y, Baldwin H, Dominguez-Martin E et al. 2021. Image-based pooled whole-genome CRISPRi screening for subcellular phenotypes. J. Cell Biol. 220:e202006180
    [Google Scholar]
55. 55.

    Kearns NA, Pham H, Tabak B, Genga RM, Silverstein NJ et al. 2015. Functional annotation of native enhancers with a Cas9-histone demethylase fusion. Nat. Methods 12:401–3
    [Google Scholar]
56. 56.

    Klein AM, Mazutis L, Akartuna I, Tallapragada N, Veres A et al. 2015. Droplet barcoding for single-cell transcriptomics applied to embryonic stem cells. Cell 161:1187–201
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57.

    Koeppel J, Peets EM, Weller J, Pallaseni A, Liberante F, Parts L. 2021. Predicting efficiency of writing short sequences into the genome using prime editing. bioRxiv 2021.11.10.468024. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.10.468024
    [Crossref]
58. 58.

    Li W, Xu H, Xiao T, Cong L, Love MI et al. 2014. MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol 15:554
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59.

    Liscovitch-Brauer N, Montalbano A, Deng J, Mendez-Mancilla A, Wessels HH et al. 2021. Profiling the genetic determinants of chromatin accessibility with scalable single-cell CRISPR screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 39:1270–77
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60.

    Lopez R, Tagasovska N, Ra S, Cho K, Pritchard JK, Regev A. 2022. Learning causal representations of single cells via sparse mechanism shift modeling. arXiv:2211.03553 [q-bio.GN]
61. 61.

    Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. 2014. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 15:550
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62.

    Macosko EZ, Basu A, Satija R, Nemesh J, Shekhar K et al. 2015. Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161:1202–14
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63.

    Mair B, Aldridge PM, Atwal RS, Philpott D, Zhang M et al. 2019. High-throughput genome-wide phenotypic screening via immunomagnetic cell sorting. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3:796–805
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64.

    Mandegar MA, Huebsch N, Frolov EB, Shin E, Truong A et al. 2016. CRISPR interference efficiently induces specific and reversible gene silencing in human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 18:541–53
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65.

    Marshall JL, Doughty BR, Subramanian V, Guckelberger P, Wang Q et al. 2020. HyPR-seq: single-cell quantification of chosen RNAs via hybridization and sequencing of DNA probes. PNAS 117:33404–13
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66.

    McCarty NS, Graham AE, Studena L, Ledesma-Amaro R. 2020. Multiplexed CRISPR technologies for gene editing and transcriptional regulation. Nat. Commun. 11:1281
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67.

    Meyers RM, Bryan JG, McFarland JM, Weir BA, Sizemore AE et al. 2017. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49:1779–84
    [Google Scholar]
68. 68.

    Michlits G, Hubmann M, Wu SH, Vainorius G, Budusan E et al. 2017. CRISPR-UMI: single-cell lineage tracing of pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screens. Nat. Methods 14:1191–97
    [Google Scholar]
69. 69.

    Mimitou EP, Cheng A, Montalbano A, Hao S, Stoeckius M et al. 2019. Multiplexed detection of proteins, transcriptomes, clonotypes and CRISPR perturbations in single cells. Nat. Methods 16:409–12
    [Google Scholar]
70. 70.

    Najm FJ, Strand C, Donovan KF, Hegde M, Sanson KR et al. 2018. Orthologous CRISPR-Cas9 enzymes for combinatorial genetic screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 36:179–89
    [Google Scholar]
71. 71.

    Panganiban RA, Park HR, Sun M, Shumyatcher M, Himes BE, Lu Q. 2019. Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies suppressors of endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced apoptosis. PNAS 116:13384–93
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72.

    Peets EM, Crepaldi L, Zhou Y, Allen F, Elmentaite R et al. 2019. Minimized double guide RNA libraries enable scale-limited CRISPR/Cas9 screens. bioRxiv 859652. https://doi.org/10.1101/859652
73. 73.

    Peidli S, Green TD, Shen C, Gross T, Min J et al. 2023. scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data. bioRxiv 2022.08.20.504663. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.20.504663v3
74. 74.

    Perez AR, Sala L, Perez RK, Vidigal JA. 2021. CSC software corrects off-target mediated gRNA depletion in CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens. Nat. Commun. 12:6461
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75.

    Pierce SE, Granja JM, Greenleaf WJ. 2021. High-throughput single-cell chromatin accessibility CRISPR screens enable unbiased identification of regulatory networks in cancer. Nat. Commun. 12:2969
    [Google Scholar]
76. 76.

    Replogle JM, Norman TM, Xu A, Hussmann JA, Chen J et al. 2020. Combinatorial single-cell CRISPR screens by direct guide RNA capture and targeted sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 38:954–61
    [Google Scholar]
77. 77.

    Replogle JM, Saunders RA, Pogson AN, Hussmann JA, Lenail A et al. 2022. Mapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale Perturb-seq. Cell 185:2559–75.e28
    [Google Scholar]
78. 78.

    Rodriguez-Meira A, Buck G, Clark SA, Povinelli BJ, Alcolea V et al. 2019. Unravelling intratumoral heterogeneity through high-sensitivity single-cell mutational analysis and parallel RNA sequencing. Mol. Cell 73:1292–305.e8
    [Google Scholar]
79. 79.

    Rosenberg AB, Roco CM, Muscat RA, Kuchina A, Sample P et al. 2018. Single-cell profiling of the developing mouse brain and spinal cord with split-pool barcoding. Science 360:176–82
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80.

    Roth TL, Li PJ, Blaeschke F, Nies JF, Apathy R et al. 2020. Pooled knockin targeting for genome engineering of cellular immunotherapies. Cell 181:728–44.e21
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81.

    Rubin AJ, Parker KR, Satpathy AT, Qi Y, Wu B et al. 2019. Coupled single-cell CRISPR screening and epigenomic profiling reveals causal gene regulatory networks. Cell 176:361–76.e17
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82.

    Sanson KR, Hanna RE, Hegde M, Donovan KF, Strand C et al. 2018. Optimized libraries for CRISPR-Cas9 genetic screens with multiple modalities. Nat. Commun. 9:5416
    [Google Scholar]
83. 83.

    Schmidt R, Steinhart Z, Layeghi M, Freimer JW, Bueno R et al. 2022. CRISPR activation and interference screens decode stimulation responses in primary human T cells. Science 375:eabj4008
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84.

    Schraivogel D, Gschwind AR, Milbank JH, Leonce DR, Jakob P et al. 2020. Targeted Perturb-seq enables genome-scale genetic screens in single cells. Nat. Methods 17:629–35
    [Google Scholar]
85. 85.

    Schraivogel D, Kuhn TM, Rauscher B, Rodríguez-Martínez M, Paulsen M et al. 2022. High-speed fluorescence image–enabled cell sorting. Science 375:315–20
    [Google Scholar]
86. 86.

    Schraivogel D, Steinmetz LM. 2023. Cell sorters see things more clearly now. Mol. Syst. Biol. 19:e11254
    [Google Scholar]
87. 87.

    Schumann K, Raju SS, Lauber M, Kolb S, Shifrut E et al. 2020. Functional CRISPR dissection of gene networks controlling human regulatory T cell identity. Nat. Immunol. 21:1456–66
    [Google Scholar]
88. 88.

    Shifrut E, Carnevale J, Tobin V, Roth TL, Woo JM et al. 2018. Genome-wide CRISPR screens in primary human T cells reveal key regulators of immune function. Cell 175:1958–71.e15
    [Google Scholar]
89. 89.

    Smits AH, Ziebell F, Joberty G, Zinn N, Mueller WF et al. 2019. Biological plasticity rescues target activity in CRISPR knock outs. Nat. Methods 16:1087–93
    [Google Scholar]
90. 90.

    Srivatsan SR, McFaline-Figueroa JL, Ramani V, Saunders L, Cao JY et al. 2020. Massively multiplex chemical transcriptomics at single-cell resolution. Science 367:45–51
    [Google Scholar]
91. 91.

    Stoeckius M. 2017. Large-scale simultaneous measurement of epitopes and transcriptomes in single cells. Nat. Methods 14:865–68
    [Google Scholar]
92. 92.

    Stuart T, Satija R. 2019. Integrative single-cell analysis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20:257–72
    [Google Scholar]
93. 93.

    Subramanian A, Narayan R, Corsello SM, Peck DD, Natoli TE et al. 2017. A next generation connectivity map: L1000 platform and the first 1,000,000 profiles. Cell 171:1437–52.e17
    [Google Scholar]
94. 94.

    Sun N, Petiwala S, Wang R, Lu C, Hu M et al. 2019. Development of drug-inducible CRISPR-Cas9 systems for large-scale functional screening. BMC Genom 20:225
    [Google Scholar]
95. 95.

    Svensson V, Vento-Tormo R, Teichmann SA. 2018. Exponential scaling of single-cell RNA-seq in the past decade. Nat. Protoc. 13:599–604
    [Google Scholar]
96. 96.

    Tian R, Abarientos A, Hong J, Hashemi SH, Yan R et al. 2021. Genome-wide CRISPRi/a screens in human neurons link lysosomal failure to ferroptosis. Nat. Neurosci. 24:1020–34
    [Google Scholar]
97. 97.

    Tian R, Gachechiladze MA, Ludwig CH, Laurie MT, Hong JY et al. 2019. CRISPR interference-based platform for multimodal genetic screens in human iPSC-derived neurons. Neuron 104:239–55.e12
    [Google Scholar]
98. 98.

    Ting PY, Parker AE, Lee JS, Trussell C, Sharif O et al. 2018. Guide Swap enables genome-scale pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screening in human primary cells. Nat. Methods 15:941–46
    [Google Scholar]
99. 99.

    Tran V, Papalexi E, Schroeder S, Kim G, Sapre A et al. 2022. High sensitivity single cell RNA sequencing with split pool barcoding. bioRxiv 2022.08.27.505512. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.27.505512
100. 100.

     Truong DJ, Kuhner K, Kuhn R, Werfel S, Engelhardt S et al. 2015. Development of an intein-mediated split-Cas9 system for gene therapy. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:6450–58
     [Google Scholar]
101. 101.

     Tsherniak A, Vazquez F, Montgomery PG, Weir BA, Kryukov G et al. 2017. Defining a cancer dependency map. Cell 170:564–76.e16
     [Google Scholar]
102. 102.

     Ursu O, Neal JT, Shea E, Thakore PI, Jerby-Arnon L et al. 2022. Massively parallel phenotyping of coding variants in cancer with Perturb-seq. Nat. Biotechnol. 40:896–905
     [Google Scholar]
103. 103.

     Usluer S, Hallast P, Crepaldi L, Zhou Y, Urgo K et al. 2022. Optimised whole-genome CRISPR interference screens identify ARID1A-dependent growth regulators in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rep 18:51061–74
     [Google Scholar]
104. 104.

     Vinceti A, Perron U, Trastulla L, Iorio F. 2022. Reduced gene templates for supervised analysis of scale-limited CRISPR-Cas9 fitness screens. Cell Rep 40:111145
     [Google Scholar]
105. 105.

     Walton RT, Singh A, Blainey PC. 2022. Pooled genetic screens with image-based profiling. Mol. Syst. Biol. 18:e10768
     [Google Scholar]
106. 106.

     Wang C, Lu T, Emanuel G, Babcock HP, Zhuang X. 2019. Imaging-based pooled CRISPR screening reveals regulators of lncRNA localization. PNAS 116:10842–851
     [Google Scholar]
107. 107.

     Wessels HH, Mendez-Mancilla A, Hao Y, Papalexi E, Mauck WM 3rd et al. 2023. Efficient combinatorial targeting of RNA transcripts in single cells with Cas13 RNA Perturb-seq. Nat. Methods 20:86–94
     [Google Scholar]
108. 108.

     Wolf FA, Angerer P, Theis FJ. 2018. SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis. Genome Biol 19:15
     [Google Scholar]
109. 109.

     Wroblewska A, Dhainaut M, Ben-Zvi B, Rose SA, Park ES et al. 2018. Protein barcodes enable high-dimensional single-cell CRISPR screens. Cell 175:1141–55.e16
     [Google Scholar]
110. 110.

     Xie S, Duan J, Li B, Zhou P, Hon GC. 2017. Multiplexed engineering and analysis of combinatorial enhancer activity in single cells. Mol. Cell 66:285–99.e5
     [Google Scholar]
111. 111.

     Xu X, Chemparathy A, Zeng L, Kempton HR, Shang S et al. 2021. Engineered miniature CRISPR-Cas system for mammalian genome regulation and editing. Mol. Cell 81:4333–45.e4
     [Google Scholar]
112. 112.

     Yamano S, Dai J, Moursi AM. 2010. Comparison of transfection efficiency of nonviral gene transfer reagents. Mol. Biotechnol. 46:287–300
     [Google Scholar]
113. 113.

     Yan X, Stuurman N, Ribeiro SA, Tanenbaum ME, Horlbeck MA et al. 2021. High-content imaging-based pooled CRISPR screens in mammalian cells. J. Cell Biol. 220:e202008158
     [Google Scholar]
114. 114.

     Yang L, Zhu Y, Yu H, Cheng X, Chen S et al. 2020. scMAGeCK links genotypes with multiple phenotypes in single-cell CRISPR screens. Genome Biol 21:19
     [Google Scholar]
115. 115.

     Yao D, Binan L, Bezney J, Simonton B, Freedman J et al. 2023. Compressed Perturb-seq: highly efficient screens for regulatory circuits using random composite perturbations. bioRxiv 2023.01.23.525200. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.23.525200
116. 116.

     Yeo NC, Chavez A, Lance-Byrne A, Chan Y, Menn D et al. 2018. An enhanced CRISPR repressor for targeted mammalian gene regulation. Nat. Methods 15:611–16
     [Google Scholar]
117. 117.

     Yu L, Wang X, Mu Q, Tam SST, Loi DSC et al. 2023. scONE-seq: A single-cell multi-omics method enables simultaneous dissection of phenotype and genotype heterogeneity from frozen tumors. Sci. Adv. 9:eabp8901
     [Google Scholar]
118. 118.

     Zappia L, Theis FJ. 2021. Over 1000 tools reveal trends in the single-cell RNA-seq analysis landscape. Genome Biol 22:301
     [Google Scholar]
119. 119.

     Zetsche B, Volz SE, Zhang F. 2015. A split-Cas9 architecture for inducible genome editing and transcription modulation. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:139–42
     [Google Scholar]
120. 120.

     Zhang H, Li T, Sun Y, Yang H. 2021. Perfecting targeting in CRISPR. Annu. Rev. Genet. 55:453–77
     [Google Scholar]
121. 121.

     Zheng GXY, Terry JM, Belgrader P, Ryvkin P, Bent ZW et al. 2017. Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells. Nat. Commun. 8:14049
     [Google Scholar]