Cited by 316Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Coupled Single-Cell CRISPR Screening and Epigenomic Profiling Reveals Causal Gene Regulatory Networks

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Here, we present Perturb-ATAC, a method that combines multiplexed CRISPR interference or knockout with genome-wide chromatin accessibility profiling in single cells based on the simultaneous detection of CRISPR guide RNAs and open chromatin sites by assay of transposase-accessible chromatin with sequencing (ATAC-seq). We applied Perturb-ATAC to transcription factors (TFs), chromatin-modifying factors, and noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) in ∼4,300 single cells, encompassing more than 63 genotype-phenotype relationships. Perturb-ATAC in human B lymphocytes uncovered regulators of chromatin accessibility, TF occupancy, and nucleosome positioning and identified a hierarchy of TFs that govern B cell state, variation, and disease-associated cis-regulatory elements. Perturb-ATAC in primary human epidermal cells revealed three sequential modules of cis-elements that specify keratinocyte fate. Combinatorial deletion of all pairs of these TFs uncovered their epistatic relationships and highlighted genomic co-localization as a basis for synergistic interactions. Thus, Perturb-ATAC is a powerful strategy to dissect gene regulatory networks in development and disease.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper introduces Perturb-ATAC, a single-cell method that pairs CRISPR interference or knockout with ATAC-seq to link genetic perturbations to chromatin accessibility phenotypes. It applies the method in human B lymphoblasts and primary keratinocytes to map regulatory networks, differentiation modules, and epistatic interactions among transcription factors.

Key findings

  • Perturb-ATAC detected guide RNAs or guide barcodes together with chromatin accessibility in thousands of single cells: 2,936 B lymphoblasts and 1,356 primary keratinocytes, covering 63 genotype-phenotype relationships.
  • In GM12878 B cells, a 40-genotype screen across 2,627 cells identified accessibility changes at 10,103 open chromatin sites and 833 features; EZH2 depletion increased accessibility at H3K27me3-marked regions (chromVAR gain 0.78, FDR < 0.0001), while SPI1 depletion reduced SPI1-motif accessibility (loss 2.17, FDR < 0.0001).
  • In keratinocytes, single-cell ATAC-seq defined three sequential regulatory modules during differentiation, and a CRISPR knockout screen of JUNB, KLF4, ZNF750, CEBPA, and EHF in 279 single-sgRNA and 235 double-sgRNA cells identified 399 altered features and showed that CEBPA loss biased cells toward early differentiation while KLF4 loss shifted cells later.
  • Epistasis analysis classified 344 additive, 102 synergistic, and 101 buffering interactions; synergistic TF pairs showed greater target-region overlap (Spearman correlation = 0.4) and correlated expression across tissues (Spearman correlation = 0.358).

Methods

  • Perturb-ATAC was performed on microfluidic integrated fluidic circuits, combining cell lysis, Tn5 transposition, reverse transcription of sgRNAs or guide barcodes, and PCR amplification before sequencing of ATAC and guide libraries.
  • The B lymphoblast experiments used dCas9-KRAB CRISPRi targeting transcription factors, chromatin modifiers, and noncoding RNAs, with single- and dual-guide genotypes; the keratinocyte experiments used Cas9-mediated knockout of selected transcription factors, followed by differentiation and harvest at Day 3.
  • Analyses included chromVAR for transcription-factor motif accessibility, permutation-based false discovery rates for differential features, nucleosome-position inference from ATAC fragment sizes, pseudotime trajectory analysis, and epistasis scoring against an additive non-interaction model.

Limitations

  • The paper states that future screens should target fewer cells per genotype (about 20) while expanding the number of genotypes, and it anticipates technological improvements to increase throughput and design complexity.
  • The study is limited to two cell systems, GM12878 B lymphoblasts and primary human keratinocytes, so the generality of the inferred regulatory relationships to other cell types or tissues is not established in the text.
  • Evident from the text: Perturb-ATAC measures chromatin accessibility and guide identity, not transcript or protein levels directly, so inferred transcription-factor activity and network relationships rely on accessibility readouts rather than direct expression measurements.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.022

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 27 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 51
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
69 of 69
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Epigenetic assays require large amounts of cellular material and are difficult to couple with genetic perturbations at scale.

    “However, it is challenging to characterize each trans-factor or c/s-element, since epigenetic assays require large amounts of cellular material and are difficult to couple with genetic perturbations at scale.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most studies are limited to measuring how single genetic perturbations affect chromatin state in bulk cell populations.

    “Therefore, most studies are limited to measuring how single genetic perturbations affect chromatin state in bulk cell populations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Co-varying accessibility between sets of regions bound by two trans-factors reflects common regulation, and inverse correlation indicates one factor controls the activity or expression of a negative regulator of the other set.

    “For example, co-varying accessibility between sets of regions bound by two trans-factors may reflect common regulation. In contrast, inverse correlation may indicate that one factor controls the activity or expression of a negative regulator of the other set of regions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous high-throughput genetic screens have mostly introduced genetic variants into cell populations and then selected for a narrow set of phenotypes.

    “Previous high-throughput genetic screens have largely relied on the introduction of genetic variants in a population of cells (for example, using CRISPR/Cas9), followed by the selection of cells containing variants that confer a limited set of cellular phenotypes, such as increased cell growth or viability.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Finding genetic variants that control genome-wide chromatin states is difficult with standard selection and needs focused experiments that perturb candidate factors one at a time.

    “identifying genetic variants that regulate genome-wide chromatin states, which are challenging to isolate with standard selection protocols, requires focused experiments, where candidate factors are perturbed one-by-one.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The expected accessibility change for a double perturbation under non-interaction is the product of the single perturbation effects, equivalent to adding their log2 fold changes.

    “The additive expectation was based on a multiplicative model of non-interaction, (i.e., CRISPR AB = CRISPR A x CRISPR B), which we calculated by adding the single perturbation fold changes in log2-space.”
6 of 6

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Synergy example switches transcription-factor pairs

    Minor

    The text identifies EHF-ZNF750 as the high-synergy pair, then presents a dual EHF-JUNB knockout as an example of "this synergy." It is therefore unclear which pair the TP63 example is intended to support.

  • RT primer mix has incompatible concentrations

    Minor

    The same RT primer mix is described as 6 pM and as containing each sequencing oligo at 6 μM. A mix containing an oligo at 6 μM cannot have a total primer concentration of 6 pM.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 78 references

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Rubin, A. J., Parker, K. R., Satpathy, A. T., Qi, Y., Wu, B., Ong, A. J., Mumbach, M. R., Ji, A. L., Kim, D. S., Cho, S. W., Zarnegar, B. J., Greenleaf, W. J., Chang, H. Y., & Khavari, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Chan Zuckerberg Biohub San Francisco (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chang, Howard Y.
  • Khavari, Paul A.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
176
Issue
1-2
Pages
361-376.e17
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2950195808
Cited by
314
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 17
FWCI
9.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Scholarworks@UNIST (Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development
  • NIH (AR45192, AR43799, P50-HG007735, R35-CA209919)
  • Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy
  • Scleroderma Research Foundation
  • Stanford Bio-X
  • Stanford
  • Burroughs Wellcome Fund
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
CRISPR interference, CRISPR knockout, chromatin accessibility, gene regulatory networks, transcription factor occupancy, nucleosome positioning, cis-regulatory elements, B cells, epidermal cells, non-coding RNA, genotype-phenotype correlation
MeSH terms
Chromatin, Humans, Transcription Factors, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Chromatin Assembly and Disassembly, Gene Regulatory Networks, Epigenomics, Single-Cell Analysis, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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