Systematic Comparison of CRISPR and shRNA Screens to Identify Essential Genes Using a Graph-Based Unsupervised Learning Model.

IF 5.1 2区 生物学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY Cells Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.3390/cells13191653
Yulian Ding, Connor Denomy, Andrew Freywald, Yi Pan, Franco J Vizeacoumar, Frederick S Vizeacoumar, Fang-Xiang Wu
{"title":"Systematic Comparison of CRISPR and shRNA Screens to Identify Essential Genes Using a Graph-Based Unsupervised Learning Model.","authors":"Yulian Ding, Connor Denomy, Andrew Freywald, Yi Pan, Franco J Vizeacoumar, Frederick S Vizeacoumar, Fang-Xiang Wu","doi":"10.3390/cells13191653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9743,"journal":{"name":"Cells","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cells","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13191653","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用基于图的无监督学习模型系统比较 CRISPR 和 shRNA 筛选,以识别重要基因。
一般来说,使用 shRNA 和 CRISPR 鉴定出的重要基因并不总是相同的,这就提出了如何在这两种筛选平台之间做出选择的问题。为了解决这个问题,我们系统地比较了 CRISPR 和 shRNA 在 254 个细胞系中不同基因表达水平下鉴定重要基因的性能。由于这两种平台都有显著的假阳性率,为了纠正这一干扰因素,我们首先开发了一种基于图的无监督机器学习模型来预测常见的重要基因。此外,为了保持单个细胞系的独特性,我们将生物实验得出的重要基因与预测的常见重要基因进行了交叉。最后,我们采用统计方法比较了这两种筛选平台识别在不同细胞系中表现出差异表达的重要基因的能力。我们的分析得出了几个值得注意的发现:(1)在识别低表达的重要基因方面,shRNA 优于 CRISPR;(2)在识别高表达的重要基因方面,两种筛选方法都表现出很强的性能,但重叠有限,因此我们建议结合使用这两种平台来识别高表达的重要基因;(3)值得注意的是,我们没有观察到一个基因在所有癌症细胞系中都是普遍重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cells
Cells Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
3472
审稿时长
16 days
期刊介绍: Cells (ISSN 2073-4409) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to cell biology, molecular biology and biophysics. It publishes reviews, research articles, communications and technical notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Full experimental and/or methodical details must be provided.
期刊最新文献
Asparagine614 Determines the Transport and Function of the Murine Anti-Aging Protein Klotho. N6-Methyladenosine RNA Modification Regulates the Differential Muscle Development in Large White and Ningxiang Pigs. Comparative Analysis of Extracellular Vesicles from Cytotoxic CD8+ αβ T Cells and γδ T Cells. Correction: Szymanska et al. The Effect of Visfatin on the Functioning of the Porcine Pituitary Gland: An In Vitro Study. Cells 2023, 12, 2835. DNA-Binding Protein A Is Actively Secreted in a Calcium-and Inflammasome-Dependent Manner and Negatively Influences Tubular Cell Survival.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1