Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes

Open access
Morgens, David W, Deans, Richard M, Li, Amy, Bassik, Michael C·2016·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

We compared the ability of short hairpin RNA (shRNA) and CRISPR/Cas9 screens to identify essential genes in the human chronic myelogenous leukemia cell line K562. We found that the precision of the two libraries in detecting essential genes was similar and that combining data from both screens improved performance. Notably, results from the two screens showed little correlation, which can be partially explained by the identification of distinct essential biological processes with each technology.

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 · 10.1038/nbt.3567

Cites

41 of 41 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 41 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Morgens, D. W., Deans, R. M., Li, A., & Bassik, M. C.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2016-05-09
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
634-636
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2346643793
Cited by
401
References
41
FWCI
22.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nbt.3567
The paper
Morgens, D. W., Deans, R. M., Li, A., & Bassik, M. C. (2016). Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3567

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.