Cited by 2,684CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringChromatin Remodeling and CancerBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens

Open access
Li, Wei, Xu, Han, Xiao, Tengfei, Cong, Le, Love, Michael I, Zhang, Feng, Irizarry, Rafael A, Liu, Jun S +2 more·2014·Genome Biology

Abstract

We propose the Model-based Analysis of Genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 Knockout (MAGeCK) method for prioritizing single-guide RNAs, genes and pathways in genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. MAGeCK demonstrates better performance compared with existing methods, identifies both positively and negatively selected genes simultaneously, and reports robust results across different experimental conditions. Using public datasets, MAGeCK identified novel essential genes and pathways, including EGFR in vemurafenib-treated A375 cells harboring a BRAF mutation. MAGeCK also detected cell type-specific essential genes, including BCR and ABL1 , in KBM7 cells bearing a BCR-ABL fusion, and IGF1R in HL-60 cells, which depends on the insulin signaling pathway for proliferation.

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 · 10.1186/s13059-014-0554-4

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The distribution of sgRNAs between plasmids/AAVs and chow/WD livers were very similar, suggesting most sgRNAs did not change in frequency and indicating a lack of genetic drift.

    “We compared sgRNA distributions from different screening steps and found the distribution between plasmids/AAVs (the starting points) and chow/WD livers (the endpoints) were very similar (Figure S2E and Table S3), suggesting that most of the sgRNAs in the screen did not change in frequency, which is also true for other CRISPR screens14, and indicated a lack of genetic drift.”

    From Positive selection of somatically mutated clones identifies adaptive pathways in metabolic liver disease (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    In Materials and methods (The MAGeCK algorithm; page unavailable), the paper assumes that most sgRNAs have no effect on selection, but cautions that this may not hold in some scenarios. It does not establish that sgRNA frequencies remained stable in other CRISPR screens; the plasmid/AAV and liver comparison is the citing authors’ own finding, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • To validate nominated hits, gene-level phenotype scores were also calculated using the MAGeCK pipeline based on sgRNA raw counts from both clones.

    “To validate the nominated hits, gene-level phenotype scores were also calculated using the MAGeCK pipeline61 based on sgRNA raw counts from both clones, and results are provided in Source Data Fig. 2.”

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
Li, W., Xu, H., Xiao, T., Cong, L., Love, M. I., Zhang, F., Irizarry, R. A., Liu, J. S., Brown, M., & Liu, X. S.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, X Shirley
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2014-12-05
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
554-554
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2100122648
Cited by
2,684
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 329 · 2025: 449 · 2024: 415 · 2023: 351 · 2022: 299 · 2021: 276 · 2020: 226 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01)
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA009337)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM099409)
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 › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
MAGeCK, CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screen, essential genes, gene prioritization, positive and negative selection, vemurafenib, EGFR, BRAF mutation, BCR-ABL, IGF-1 receptor, insulin signaling pathway
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Neoplasms, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, HL-60 Cells, Computational Biology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genes, Essential, Cell Line, Tumor, Gene Knockout Techniques, CRISPR-Cas Systems, 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