A model for accurate quantification of CRISPR effects in pooled FACS screens
Pimentel, H.; Freimer, J.; Arce, M. M.; Garrido, C. M.; Marson, A.; Pritchard, J. K.
Show abstract
CRISPR screens are powerful tools to identify key genes that underlie biological processes. One important type of screen uses fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to sort perturbed cells into bins based on the expression level of marker genes, followed by guide RNA (gRNA) sequencing. Analysis of these data presents several statistical challenges due to multiple factors including the discrete nature of the bins and typically small numbers of replicate experiments. To address these challenges, we developed a robust and powerful Bayesian random effects model and software package called Waterbear. Furthermore, we used Waterbear to explore how various experimental design parameters affect statistical power to establish principled guidelines for future screens. Finally, we experimentally validated our experimental design model findings that, when using Waterbear for analysis, high power is maintained even at low cell coverage and a high multiplicity of infection. We anticipate that Waterbear will be of broad utility for analyzing FACS-based CRISPR screens.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Conditional resampling improves calibration and sensitivity in single cell CRISPR screen analysis 97%
- Modelling asymmetric count ratios in CRISPR screens to decrease experiment size and improve phenotype detection 97%
- Robust differential expression testing for single-cell CRISPR screens at low multiplicity of infection 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- An endoribonuclease-based feedforward controller for decoupling resource-limited genetic modules in mammalian cells 97%
- Optimal design of single-cell RNA sequencing experiments for cell-type-specific eQTL analysis 96%
- RoCK and ROI: Single-cell transcriptomics with multiplexed enrichment of selected transcripts and region-specific sequencing 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.