Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large-Scale Analysis of CRISPR/Cas9 Cell-Cycle Knockouts Reveals the Diversity of p53-Dependent Responses to Cell-Cycle Defects

Open access
McKinley, Kara L., Cheeseman, Iain M.·2017·Developmental Cell

Abstract

SUMMARY Defining the genes that are essential for cellular proliferation is critical for understanding organismal development and identifying high-value targets for disease therapies. However, the requirements for cell-cycle progression in human cells remain incompletely understood. To elucidate the consequences of acute and chronic elimination of cell-cycle proteins, we generated and characterized inducible CRISPR/Cas9 knockout human cell lines targeting 209 genes involved in diverse cell-cycle processes. We performed single-cell microscopic analyses to systematically establish the effects of the knockouts on subcellular architecture. To define variations in cell-cycle requirements between cultured cell lines, we generated knockouts across cell lines of diverse origins. We demonstrate that p53 modulates the phenotype of specific cell-cycle defects through distinct mechanisms, depending on the defect. This work provides a resource to broadly facilitate robust and long-term depletion of cell-cycle proteins and reveals insights into the requirements for cell-cycle progression.

Overview

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.devcel.2017.01.012

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
McKinley, K. L., & Cheeseman, I. M.
Venue
Developmental Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
405-420.e2
ISSN
1534-5807 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588526630
Cited by
172
References
10
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.