Computational Methods for Analysis of Large-Scale CRISPR Screens

Literature Cited

1. 1. 

   NHGRI (Natl. Human Genome Res. Inst.) 2013. The Human Genome Project: frequently asked questions Fact sheet, NHGRI Bethesda, MD: https://www.genome.gov/sites/default/files/genome-old/pages/Education/Smithsonian_Exhibition/Human_Genome_Project_FAQ.pdf
2. 2. 

   1000 Genomes Proj. Consort 2015. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526:68–74
   [Google Scholar]
3. 3. 

   Bartha I, di Iulio J, Venter JC, Telenti A 2018. Human gene essentiality. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19:151–62
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4. 

   Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F et al. 2010. Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 186:2757–61
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5. 

   Beerli RR, Barbas CF 3rd 2002. Engineering polydactyl zinc-finger transcription factors. Nat. Biotechnol. 20:2135–41
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6. 

   Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E 2012. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:6096816–21
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7. 

   Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, Lin S, Barretto R et al. 2013. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339:6121819–23
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8. 

   Mali P, Yang L, Esvelt KM, Aach J, Guell M et al. 2013. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339:6121823–26
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9. 

   Komor AC, Kim YB, Packer MS, Zuris JA, Liu DR 2016. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533:7603420–24
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10. 

    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 576:7785149–57
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11. 

    Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Doudna JA, Weissman JS et al. 2013. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152:51173–83
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12. 

    Bikard D, Jiang W, Samai P, Hochschild A, Zhang F, Marraffini LA 2013. Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system. Nucleic Acids Res 41:157429–37
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13. 

    Liu XS, Wu H, Ji X, Stelzer Y, Wu X et al. 2016. Editing DNA methylation in the mammalian genome. Cell 167:1233–47.e17
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14. 

    Cano-Rodriguez D, Gjaltema RAF, Jilderda LJ, Jellema P, Dokter-Fokkens J et al. 2016. Writing of H3K4Me3 overcomes epigenetic silencing in a sustained but context-dependent manner. Nat. Commun. 7:12284
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15. 

    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. 33:5510–17
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16. 

    Morita S, Noguchi H, Horii T, Nakabayashi K, Kimura M et al. 2016. Targeted DNA demethylation in vivo using dCas9-peptide repeat and scFv-TET1 catalytic domain fusions. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:101060–65
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17. 

    Amabile A, Migliara A, Capasso P, Biffi M, Cittaro D et al. 2016. Inheritable silencing of endogenous genes by hit-and-run targeted epigenetic editing. Cell 167:1219–32.e14
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18. 

    Wang T, Wei JJ, Sabatini DM, Lander ES 2014. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343:616680–84
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19. 

    Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Hartenian E, Shi X, Scott DA et al. 2014. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343:616684–87
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20. 

    Zhou Y, Zhu S, Cai C, Yuan P, Li C et al. 2014. High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells. Nature 509:7501487–91
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21. 

    Koike-Yusa H, Li Y, Tan E-P, Velasco-Herrera MDC, Yusa K 2014. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:3267–73
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22. 

    Liu SJ, Horlbeck MA, Cho SW, Birk HS, Malatesta M et al. 2017. CRISPRi-based genome-scale identification of functional long noncoding RNA loci in human cells. Science 355:6320eaah7111
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23. 

    Liu Y, Yu C, Daley TP, Wang F, Cao WS et al. 2018. CRISPR activation screens systematically identify factors that drive neuronal fate and reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 23:5758–71.e8
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24. 

    Bester AC, Lee JD, Chavez A, Lee Y-R, Nachmani D et al. 2018. An integrated genome-wide CRISPRa approach to functionalize lncRNAs in drug resistance. Cell 173:3649–64.e20
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25. 

    Han K, Jeng EE, Hess GT, Morgens DW, Li A, Bassik MC 2017. Synergistic drug combinations for cancer identified in a CRISPR screen for pairwise genetic interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35:5463–74
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26. 

    Behan FM, Iorio F, Picco G, Gonçalves E, Beaver CM et al. 2019. Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR-Cas9 screens. Nature 568:7753511–16
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27. 

    Sharma S, Petsalaki E. 2018. Application of CRISPR-Cas9 based genome-wide screening approaches to study cellular signalling mechanisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19:4933
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28. 

    Possemato R, Marks KM, Shaul YD, Pacold ME, Kim D et al. 2011. Functional genomics reveal that the serine synthesis pathway is essential in breast cancer. Nature 476:7360346–50
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29. 

    Bassik MC, Kampmann M, Lebbink RJ, Wang S, Hein MY et al. 2013. A systematic mammalian genetic interaction map reveals pathways underlying ricin susceptibility. Cell 152:4909–22
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30. 

    Dompe N, Rivers CS, Li L, Cordes S, Schwickart M et al. 2011. A whole-genome RNAi screen identifies an 8q22 gene cluster that inhibits death receptor-mediated apoptosis. PNAS 108:43E943–51
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31. 

    van de Weijer ML, Bassik MC, Luteijn RD, Voorburg CM, Lohuis MAM et al. 2014. A high-coverage shRNA screen identifies TMEM129 as an E3 ligase involved in ER-associated protein degradation. Nat. Commun. 5:3832
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32. 

    Cowley GS, Weir BA, Vazquez F, Tamayo P, Scott JA et al. 2014. Parallel genome-scale loss of function screens in 216 cancer cell lines for the identification of context-specific genetic dependencies. Sci. Data 1:140035
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33. 

    Hu Y, Comjean A, Roesel C, Vinayagam A, Flockhart I et al. 2017. FlyRNAi.org—the database of the Drosophila RNAi screening center and transgenic RNAi project: 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Res 45:D1D672–78
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34. 

    Schmidt EE, Pelz O, Buhlmann S, Kerr G, Horn T, Boutros M 2013. GenomeRNAi: a database for cell-based and in vivo RNAi phenotypes, 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D1D1021–26
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35. 

    Smith I, Greenside PG, Natoli T, Lahr DL, Wadden D et al. 2017. Evaluation of RNAi and CRISPR technologies by large-scale gene expression profiling in the Connectivity Map. PLOS Biol 15:11e2003213
    [Google Scholar]
36. 36. 

    Pinello L, Canver MC, Hoban MD, Orkin SH, Kohn DB et al. 2016. Analyzing CRISPR genome-editing experiments with CRISPResso. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:7695–97
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37. 

    Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P et al. 2007. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315:58191709–12
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38. 

    Mitsunobu H, Teramoto J, Nishida K, Kondo A 2017. Beyond native Cas9: manipulating genomic information and function. Trends Biotechnol 35:10983–96
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39. 

    Lindeboom RGH, Vermeulen M, Lehner B, Supek F 2019. The impact of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay on genetic disease, gene editing and cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Genet. 51:111645–51
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40. 

    Canver MC, Smith EC, Sher F, Pinello L, Sanjana NE et al. 2015. BCL11A enhancer dissection by Cas9-mediated in situ saturating mutagenesis. Nature 527:7577192–97
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41. 

    Zhu S, Li W, Liu J, Chen C-H, Liao Q et al. 2016. Genome-scale deletion screening of human long non-coding RNAs using a paired-guide RNA CRISPR-Cas9 library. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:121279–86
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42. 

    Hart T, Chandrashekhar M, Aregger M, Steinhart Z, Brown KR et al. 2015. High-resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163:61515–26
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43. 

    Munoz DM, Cassiani PJ, Li L, Billy E, Korn JM et al. 2016. CRISPR screens provide a comprehensive assessment of cancer vulnerabilities but generate false-positive hits for highly amplified genomic regions. Cancer Discov 6:8900–913
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44. 

    Doench JG, Hartenian E, Graham DB, Tothova Z, Hegde M et al. 2014. Rational design of highly active sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene inactivation. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:121262–67
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45. 

    Kuscu C, Arslan S, Singh R, Thorpe J, Adli M 2014. Genome-wide analysis reveals characteristics of off-target sites bound by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:7677–83
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46. 

    Tycko J, Myer VE, Hsu PD 2016. Methods for optimizing CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing specificity. Mol. Cell 63:3355–70
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47. 

    Klann TS, Black JB, Chellappan M, Safi A, Song L et al. 2017. CRISPR-Cas9 epigenome editing enables high-throughput screening for functional regulatory elements in the human genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 35:6561–68
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48. 

    Radzisheuskaya A, Shlyueva D, Müller I, Helin K 2016. Optimizing sgRNA position markedly improves the efficiency of CRISPR/dCas9-mediated transcriptional repression. Nucleic Acids Res 44:18e141
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49. 

    Rossi A, Kontarakis Z, Gerri C, Nolte H, Hölper S et al. 2015. Genetic compensation induced by deleterious mutations but not gene knockdowns. Nature 524:7564230–33
    [Google Scholar]
50. 50. 

    Rosenbluh J, Xu H, Harrington W, Gill S, Wang X et al. 2017. Complementary information derived from CRISPR Cas9 mediated gene deletion and suppression. Nat. Commun. 8:15403
    [Google Scholar]
51. 51. 

    Isaac RS, Jiang F, Doudna JA, Lim WA, Narlikar GJ, Almeida R 2016. Nucleosome breathing and remodeling constrain CRISPR-Cas9 function. eLife 5:e13450
    [Google Scholar]
52. 52. 

    Gilbert LA, Larson MH, Morsut L, Liu Z, Brar GA et al. 2013. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154:2442–51
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53. 

    Gilbert LA, Horlbeck MA, Adamson B, Villalta JE, Chen Y et al. 2014. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159:3647–61
    [Google Scholar]
54. 54. 

    Tanenbaum ME, Gilbert LA, Qi LS, Weissman JS, Vale RD 2014. A protein-tagging system for signal amplification in gene expression and fluorescence imaging. Cell 159:3635–46
    [Google Scholar]
55. 55. 

    Chavez A, Scheiman J, Vora S, Pruitt BW, Tuttle M et al. 2015. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated transcriptional programming. Nat. Methods 12:4326–28
    [Google Scholar]
56. 56. 

    Konermann S, Brigham MD, Trevino AE, Joung J, Abudayyeh OO et al. 2015. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature 517:7536583–88
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57. 

    Chavez A, Tuttle M, Pruitt BW, Ewen-Campen B, Chari R et al. 2016. Comparison of Cas9 activators in multiple species. Nat. Methods 13:7563–67
    [Google Scholar]
58. 58. 

    Sack LM, Davoli T, Li MZ, Li Y, Xu Q et al. 2018. Profound tissue specificity in proliferation control underlies cancer drivers and aneuploidy patterns. Cell 173:2499–514.e23
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59. 

    Gaudelli NM, Komor AC, Rees HA, Packer MS, Badran AH et al. 2017. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551:7681464–71
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60. 

    Jin S, Zong Y, Gao Q, Zhu Z, Wang Y et al. 2019. Cytosine, but not adenine, base editors induce genome-wide off-target mutations in rice. Science 364:6437292–95
    [Google Scholar]
61. 61. 

    Ma Y, Zhang J, Yin W, Zhang Z, Song Y, Chang X 2016. Targeted AID-mediated mutagenesis (TAM) enables efficient genomic diversification in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13:121029–35
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62. 

    Hess GT, Frésard L, Han K, Lee CH, Li A et al. 2016. Directed evolution using dCas9-targeted somatic hypermutation in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 13:121036–42
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63. 

    Kuscu C, Parlak M, Tufan T, Yang J, Szlachta K et al. 2017. CRISPR-STOP: gene silencing through base-editing-induced nonsense mutations. Nat. Methods 14:7710–712
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64. 

    Doench JG. 2018. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user's guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19:267–80
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65. 

    Wang G, Chow RD, Ye L, Guzman CD, Dai X et al. 2018. Mapping a functional cancer genome atlas of tumor suppressors in mouse liver using AAV-CRISPR-mediated direct in vivo screening. Sci. Adv. 4:2 eaao5508
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66. 

    Chow RD, Guzman CD, Wang G, Schmidt F, Youngblood MW et al. 2017. AAV-mediated direct in vivo CRISPR screen identifies functional suppressors in glioblastoma. Nat. Neurosci. 20:101329–41
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67. 

    Chen S, Sanjana NE, Zheng K, Shalem O, Lee K et al. 2015. Genome-wide CRISPR screen in a mouse model of tumor growth and metastasis. Cell 160:61246–60
    [Google Scholar]
68. 68. 

    Hart T, Tong AHY, Chan K, Van Leeuwen J, Seetharaman A et al. 2017. Evaluation and design of genome-wide CRISPR/SpCas9 knockout screens. G3 7:82719–27
    [Google Scholar]
69. 69. 

    Daley TP, Lin Z, Lin X, Liu Y, Wong WH, Qi LS 2018. CRISPhieRmix: a hierarchical mixture model for CRISPR pooled screens. Genome Biol 19:1159
    [Google Scholar]
70. 70. 

    Shen JP, Zhao D, Sasik R, Luebeck J, Birmingham A et al. 2017. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions. Nat. Methods 14:6573–76
    [Google Scholar]
71. 71. 

    Wong ASL, Choi GCG, Cui CH, Pregernig G, Milani P et al. 2016. Multiplexed barcoded CRISPR-Cas9 screening enabled by CombiGEM. PNAS 113:92544–49
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72. 

    Du D, Roguev A, Gordon DE, Chen M, Chen S-H et al. 2017. Genetic interaction mapping in mammalian cells using CRISPR interference. Nat. Methods 14:6577–80
    [Google Scholar]
73. 73. 

    Najm FJ, Strand C, Donovan KF, Hegde M, Sanson KR et al. 2018. Orthologous CRISPR-Cas9 enzymes for combinatorial genetic screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 36:2179–89
    [Google Scholar]
74. 74. 

    Horlbeck MA, Xu A, Wang M, Bennett NK, Park CY et al. 2018. Mapping the genetic landscape of human cells. Cell 174:4953–67.e22
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75. 

    Boettcher M, Tian R, Blau JA, Markegard E, Wagner RT et al. 2018. Dual gene activation and knockout screen reveals directional dependencies in genetic networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 36:2170–78
    [Google Scholar]
76. 76. 

    Diao Y, Fang R, Li B, Meng Z, Yu J et al. 2017. A tiling-deletion-based genetic screen for cis-regulatory element identification in mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 14:629–35
    [Google Scholar]
77. 77. 

    Fulco CP, Munschauer M, Anyoha R, Munson G, Grossman SR et al. 2016. Systematic mapping of functional enhancer–promoter connections with CRISPR interference. Science 354:6313769–73
    [Google Scholar]
78. 78. 

    Korkmaz G, Lopes R, Ugalde AP, Nevedomskaya E, Han R et al. 2016. Functional genetic screens for enhancer elements in the human genome using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:2192–98
    [Google Scholar]
79. 79. 

    Hsu JY, Fulco CP, Cole MA, Canver MC, Pellin D et al. 2018. CRISPR-SURF: discovering regulatory elements by deconvolution of CRISPR tiling screen data. Nat. Methods 15:12992–93
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80. 

    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 167:71853–66.e17
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81. 

    Parnas O, Jovanovic M, Eisenhaure TM, Herbst RH 2015. A genome-wide CRISPR screen in primary immune cells to dissect regulatory networks. Cell 167:71853–66.e17
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82. 

    Heaton BE, Kennedy EM, Dumm RE, Harding AT, Sacco MT et al. 2017. A CRISPR activation screen identifies a pan-avian influenza virus inhibitory host factor. Cell Rep 20:71503–12
    [Google Scholar]
83. 83. 

    König R, Chiang C-Y, Tu BP, Yan SF, DeJesus PD et al. 2007. A probability-based approach for the analysis of large-scale RNAi screens. Nat. Methods 4:10847–49
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84. 

    Luo B, Cheung HW, Subramanian A, Sharifnia T, Okamoto M et al. 2008. Highly parallel identification of essential genes in cancer cells. PNAS 105:5120380–85
    [Google Scholar]
85. 85. 

    Joung J, Konermann S, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Platt RJ et al. 2017. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout and transcriptional activation screening. Nat. Protoc. 12:4828–63
    [Google Scholar]
86. 86. 

    Morgens DW, Deans RM, Li A, Bassik MC 2016. Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:6634–36
    [Google Scholar]
87. 87. 

    Ihry RJ, Salick MR, Ho DJ, Sondey M, Kommineni S et al. 2019. Genome-scale CRISPR screens identify human pluripotency-specific genes. Cell Rep 27:2616–30.e6
    [Google Scholar]
88. 88. 

    Bell CC, Fennell KA, Chan Y-C, Rambow F, Yeung MM et al. 2019. Targeting enhancer switching overcomes non-genetic drug resistance in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nat. Commun. 10:12723
    [Google Scholar]
89. 89. 

    Diaz AA, Qin H, Ramalho-Santos M, Song JS 2015. HiTSelect: a comprehensive tool for high-complexity-pooled screen analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 43:3e16
    [Google Scholar]
90. 90. 

    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 15:12554
    [Google Scholar]
91. 91. 

    Yu J, Silva J, Califano A 2016. ScreenBEAM: a novel meta-analysis algorithm for functional genomics screens via Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Bioinformatics 32:2260–67
    [Google Scholar]
92. 92. 

    Tsherniak A, Vazquez F, Montgomery PG, Weir BA, Kryukov G et al. 2017. Defining a cancer dependency map. Cell 170:3564–76.e16
    [Google Scholar]
93. 93. 

    Li W, Köster J, Xu H, Chen C-H, Xiao T et al. 2015. Quality control, modeling, and visualization of CRISPR screens with MAGeCK-VISPR. Genome Biol 16:281
    [Google Scholar]
94. 94. 

    Hart T, Moffat J. 2016. BAGEL: a computational framework for identifying essential genes from pooled library screens. BMC Bioinform 17:164
    [Google Scholar]
95. 95. 

    Jia G, Wang X, Xiao G 2017. A permutation-based non-parametric analysis of CRISPR screen data. BMC Genom 18:1545
    [Google Scholar]
96. 96. 

    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. 49:121779–84
    [Google Scholar]
97. 97. 

    Aguirre AJ, Meyers RM, Weir BA, Vazquez F, Zhang C-Z et al. 2016. Genomic copy number dictates a gene-independent cell response to CRISPR/Cas9 targeting. Cancer Discov 6:8914–29
    [Google Scholar]
98. 98. 

    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. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:2184–91
    [Google Scholar]
99. 99. 

    Wu A, Xiao T, Fei T, Liu XS, Li W 2018. Reducing false positives in CRISPR/Cas9 screens from copy number variations. bioRxiv 247031. https://doi.org/10.1101/247031
    [Crossref]
100. 100. 

     Jeong H-H, Kim SY, Rousseaux MWC, Zoghbi HY, Liu Z 2017. CRISPRcloud: a secure cloud-based pipeline for CRISPR pooled screen deconvolution. Bioinformatics 33:182963–65
     [Google Scholar]
101. 101. 

     Jeong H-H, Kim SY, Rousseaux MWC, Zoghbi HY, Liu Z 2018. CRISPRCloud2: A cloud-based platform for deconvolving CRISPR screen data. bioRxiv 309302. https://doi.org/10.1101/309302
     [Crossref]
102. 102. 

     Winter J, Schwering M, Pelz O, Rauscher B, Zhan T et al. 2017. CRISPRAnalyzeR: Interactive analysis, annotation and documentation of pooled CRISPR screens. bioRxiv 109967. https://doi.org/10.1101/109967
     [Crossref]
103. 103. 

     Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL 2009. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol 10:3R25
     [Google Scholar]
104. 104. 

     Martin M. 2011. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17:110–12
     [Google Scholar]
105. 105. 

     Jeong H-H, Kim SY, Rousseaux MWC, Zoghbi HY, Liu Z 2019. Beta-binomial modeling of CRISPR pooled screen data identifies target genes with greater sensitivity and fewer false negatives. Genome Res 29:6999–1008
     [Google Scholar]
106. 106. 

     Wang B, Wang M, Zhang W, Xiao T, Chen C-H et al. 2019. Integrative analysis of pooled CRISPR genetic screens using MAGeCKFlute. Nat. Protoc. 14:3756–80
     [Google Scholar]
107. 107. 

     Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Lyon D, Junge A, Wyder S et al. 2019. STRING v11: protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D1D607–13
     [Google Scholar]
108. 108. 

     Tate JG, Bamford S, Jubb HC, Sondka Z, Beare DM et al. 2019. COSMIC: the catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D1D941–47
     [Google Scholar]
109. 109. 

     Norman TM, Horlbeck MA, Replogle JM, Ge AY, Xu A et al. 2019. Exploring genetic interaction manifolds constructed from rich single-cell phenotypes. Science 365:6455786–93
     [Google Scholar]
110. 110. 

     Zamanighomi M, Jain SS, Ito T, Pal D, Daley TP, Sellers WR 2019. GEMINI: a variational Bayesian approach to identify genetic interactions from combinatorial CRISPR screens. Genome Biol 20:1137
     [Google Scholar]
111. 111. 

     Collins SR, Schuldiner M, Krogan NJ, Weissman JS 2006. A strategy for extracting and analyzing large-scale quantitative epistatic interaction data. Genome Biol 7:7R63
     [Google Scholar]
112. 112. 

     Zhao D, Badur MG, Luebeck J, Magaña JH, Birmingham A et al. 2018. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 metabolic screens reveal critical redox control points dependent on the KEAP1-NRF2 regulatory axis. Mol. Cell 69:4699–708.e7
     [Google Scholar]
113. 113. 

     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 167:71867–82.e21
     [Google Scholar]
114. 114. 

     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 167:71883–96.e15
     [Google Scholar]
115. 115. 

     Xie S, Duan J, Li B, Zhou P, Hon GC 2017. Multiplexed engineering and analysis of combinatorial enhancer activity in single cells. Mol. Cell 66:2285–99.e5
     [Google Scholar]
116. 116. 

     Datlinger P, Rendeiro AF, Schmidl C, Krausgruber T, Traxler P et al. 2017. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14:3297–301
     [Google Scholar]
117. 117. 

     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 175:71958–71.e15
     [Google Scholar]
118. 118. 

     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 21:119
     [Google Scholar]
119. 119. 

     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]
120. 120. 

     Xie S, Cooley A, Armendariz D, Zhou P, Hon GC 2018. Frequent sgRNA-barcode recombination in single-cell perturbation assays. PLOS ONE 13:6e0198635
     [Google Scholar]
121. 121. 

     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
     [Crossref]
122. 122. 

     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 15:4271–74
     [Google Scholar]
123. 123. 

     Burstein D, Harrington LB, Strutt SC, Probst AJ, Anantharaman K et al. 2017. New CRISPR-Cas systems from uncultivated microbes. Nature 542:7640237–41
     [Google Scholar]
124. 124. 

     Allen F, Behan F, Khodak A, Iorio F, Yusa K et al. 2019. JACKS: joint analysis of CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Res 29:3464–71
     [Google Scholar]
125. 125. 

     Iorio F, Behan FM, Gonçalves E, Bhosle SG, Chen E et al. 2018. Unsupervised correction of gene-independent cell responses to CRISPR-Cas9 targeting. BMC Genom 19:1604
     [Google Scholar]
126. 126. 

     Bodapati S, Daley TP, Lin X, Zou J, Qi LS 2020. A benchmark of algorithms for the analysis of pooled CRISPR screens. Genome Biol 21:162
     [Google Scholar]