Cited by 225CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFungal and yeast genetics research

Functional Genetic Variants Revealed by Massively Parallel Precise Genome Editing

Open access
Sharon, Eilon, Chen, Shi-An A., Khosla, Neil M., Smith, Justin D., Pritchard, Jonathan K., Fraser, Hunter B.·2018·Cell

Abstract

A major challenge in genetics is to identify genetic variants driving natural phenotypic variation. However, current methods of genetic mapping have limited resolution. To address this challenge, we developed a CRISPR-Cas9-based high-throughput genome editing approach that can introduce thousands of specific genetic variants in a single experiment. This enabled us to study the fitness consequences of 16,006 natural genetic variants in yeast. We identified 572 variants with significant fitness differences in glucose media; these are highly enriched in promoters, particularly in transcription factor binding sites, while only 19.2% affect amino acid sequences. Strikingly, nearby variants nearly always favor the same parent's alleles, suggesting that lineage-specific selection is often driven by multiple clustered variants. In sum, our genome editing approach reveals the genetic architecture of fitness variation at single-base resolution and could be adapted to measure the effects of genome-wide genetic variation in any screen for cell survival or cell-sortable markers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.057

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Alternatives to DNA cleavage-induced editing include base editing, prime editing, and CRISPRi/CRISPRa.

    “Alternatives to DNA cleavage-induced editing include using CRISPR-Cas9 for direct chemical sequence alteration (base editing) 25,26 , providing RNA templates for gene alteration (prime editing) 27,28 , and for transcriptional control (CRISPR interference, CRISPRi; CRISPR activation, CRISPRa) 29,30 (Fig. 3).”

    From The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing (2020) · cites this paper as [27]

    The citation is attached to the sentence’s claim about CRISPRi/CRISPRa for transcriptional control. The Introduction and Results describe Cas9 cleavage followed by donor-directed repair, not CRISPRi or CRISPRa; searches for those terms and transcriptional control found no passage addressing that claim. The References mention base editing, but do not establish the claim for which this citation is offered. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharon, E., Chen, S.-A. A., Khosla, N. M., Smith, J. D., Pritchard, J. K., & Fraser, H. B.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sharon, Eilon
  • Fraser, Hunter B.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
175
Issue
2
Pages
544-557.e16
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890432440
Cited by
225
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4
FWCI
7.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • the European Molecular Biology Organization (LTF 646-2014)
  • the National Institutes of Health (5T32GM007276-42, 2R01GM097171-05A1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
functional variants, CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, high-throughput genome editing, yeast, natural genetic variation, promoter polymorphism, transcription factor binding sites, lineage-specific selection
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Chromosome Mapping, Genetic Vectors, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Genetic Variation, Yeasts, Genome, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, CRISPR-Cas Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review