Cited by 1,233CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringChromatin Remodeling and CancerRNA Interference and Gene Delivery

High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR-Cas9

Open access
Shalem, Ophir, Sanjana, Neville E., Zhang, Feng·2015·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

Forward genetic screens are powerful tools for the discovery and functional annotation of genetic elements. Recently, the RNA-guided CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat)-associated Cas9 nuclease has been combined with genome-scale guide RNA libraries for unbiased, phenotypic screening. In this Review, we describe recent advances using Cas9 for genome-scale screens, including knockout approaches that inactivate genomic loci and strategies that modulate transcriptional activity. We discuss practical aspects of screen design, provide comparisons with RNA interference (RNAi) screening, and outline future applications and challenges.

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/nrg3899

Cites

130 of 130 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?

  • DNA barcoding has largely limited pooled screens to assessing effects on cell fitness.

    “This has limited pooled screens largely to vetting genes for their potential impact on cell fitness”

    From Protein Barcodes Enable High-Dimensional Single-Cell CRISPR Screens (2018) · cites this paper as Shalem et al., 2015

  • Three distinct bacterial CRISPR systems have been identified; Type I, II and III, and it is the Type II system that has mainly been adapted for use in artificial gene regulation and genome editing.

    “So far three distinct bacterial CRISPR systems have been identified; Type I, II and III, and it is the Type II system that has mainly been adapted for use in artificial gene regulation and genome editing (Kim and Kim 2014; Shalem, Sanjana and Zhang 2015).”

    From <i>Candida glabrata</i> : new tools and technologies—expanding the toolkit (2015) · cites this paper as Shalem, Sanjana and Zhang 2015

  • The most commonly used CRISPR Type II system consists of a gRNA and an endonuclease, the CRISPR-associated (Cas) nuclease, Cas9, which cleaves the targeted chromosomal DNA in a site-specific manner triggering endogenous DNA repair systems resulting in genome modification.

    “The most commonly used CRISPR Type II system consists of a gRNA and an endonuclease, the CRISPR-associated (Cas) nuclease, Cas9, which cleaves the targeted chromosomal DNA in a site-specific manner triggering endogenous DNA repair systems resulting in genome modification (for an in-depth review, see Doudna and Charpentier 2014; Kim and Kim 2014; Shalem, Sanjana and Zhang 2015).”

    From <i>Candida glabrata</i> : new tools and technologies—expanding the toolkit (2015) · cites this paper as Shalem, Sanjana and Zhang 2015

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
Shalem, O., Sanjana, N. E., & Zhang, F.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Shalem, Ophir
  • Zhang, Feng
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2015-04-09
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
299-311
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2026592619
Cited by
1,233
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 117 · 2018: 131 · 2017: 145 · 2016: 123 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PMC
Funders
  • Klarman Family Foundation
  • Simons Center for the Social Brain, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • National Institute of Mental Health (DP1MH100706)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (K99HG008171)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS073124)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (DP1‑MH100706)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9, genome-wide screen, guide RNA library, forward genetic screen, gene knockout, transcriptional regulation, phenotypic screening, screen design, functional genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Genetic Testing, Humans, Models, Genetic, Gene Library, Genomics, RNA Interference, Mice, Gene Knockout Techniques, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, 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