Cited by 733CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryVirus-based gene therapy research

High-throughput screening of a CRISPR/Cas9 library for functional genomics in human cells

Zhou, Yuexin, Zhu, Shiyou, Cai, Changzu, Yuan, Pengfei, Li, Chunmei, Huang, Yanyi, Wei, Wensheng·2014·Nature

Abstract

Targeted genome editing technologies are powerful tools for studying biology and disease, and have a broad range of research applications. In contrast to the rapid development of toolkits to manipulate individual genes, large-scale screening methods based on the complete loss of gene expression are only now beginning to be developed. Here we report the development of a focused CRISPR/Cas-based (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated) lentiviral library in human cells and a method of gene identification based on functional screening and high-throughput sequencing analysis. Using knockout library screens, we successfully identified the host genes essential for the intoxication of cells by anthrax and diphtheria toxins, which were confirmed by functional validation. The broad application of this powerful genetic screening strategy will not only facilitate the rapid identification of genes important for bacterial toxicity but will also enable the discovery of genes that participate in other biological processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature13166

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • High-throughput screening techniques that can generate large amounts of data are now common in many fields of biology.

    “High-throughput screening techniques that can generate large amounts of data are now common in many fields of biology”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Zhou et al., 2014

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 733

Authors
Zhou, Y., Zhu, S., Cai, C., Yuan, P., Li, C., Huang, Y., & Wei, W.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wei, Wensheng
Venue
Nature
Published
2014-04-09
Volume
509
Issue
7501
Pages
487-491
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1982873976
Cited by
733
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 39
FWCI
42.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Peking University
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, gene essentiality, anthrax toxin, diphtheria toxin, gene function identification, next-generation sequencing, human cells
MeSH terms
Antigens, Bacterial, Bacterial Toxins, Cell Line, Cells, Diphtheria Toxin, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Gene Library, Lentivirus, Genomics, Organic Cation Transporter 1, INDEL Mutation, High-Throughput Screening Assays, RNA, Small Untranslated, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, CRISPR-Associated Proteins

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