Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Genetic Screens02:46

Genetic Screens

Genetic screens are tools used to identify genes and mutations responsible for phenotypes of interest. Genetic screens help identify individuals or a group of people at risk of developing  genetic diseases and help them with early intervention, targeted therapy, and reproductive options.
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which result in visible changes...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Epigenetic control of telomeric RNA maintains heterochromatin in telomerase-driven cancers.

Signal transduction and targeted therapy·2026
Same author

Initial leukemic epigenomic state determines hypomethylating agent response.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

Bridging the interpretability gap for medical artificial intelligence models using class-association manifold learning.

Nature biomedical engineering·2026
Same author

Early lifespan prediction in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> via contrastive learning and channel attention.

Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology·2025
Same author

Noise2read: Accurately Rectify Millions of Erroneous Short Reads Through Graph Learning on Edit Distances.

Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics·2025
Same author

Unraveling bladder cancer-related circRNA biomarkers: a hybrid model combining deep learning and statistics.

Health information science and systems·2025
Same journal

RETRACTED: Bakshi et al. Crocin Inhibits Angiogenesis and Metastasis in Colon Cancer via TNF-α/NF-kB/VEGF Pathways. <i>Cells</i> 2022, <i>11</i>, 1502.

Cells·2026
Same journal

Correction: Verde et al. Molecular Mechanisms of Protein Aggregation in ALS-FTD: Focus on TDP-43 and Cellular Protective Responses. <i>Cells</i> 2025, <i>14</i>, 680.

Cells·2026
Same journal

Inflammation in Cardiomyopathies: Cellular Mechanisms Across Cardiac Phenotype.

Cells·2026
Same journal

IL-4/IL-13-Driven Dysregulation of Epidermal Lipid Metabolism in Atopic Dermatitis: An Immunometabolic Link Between Type 2 Inflammation and Barrier Dysfunction.

Cells·2026
Same journal

Activity of DNA- and RNA-Guided Prokaryotic Argonautes in Human Mitochondria.

Cells·2026
Same journal

Placental Pathophysiology in Maternal Psychoactive Substance Use: Biological, Clinical, and Forensic Perspectives.

Cells·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Investigation of Genetic Dependencies Using CRISPR-Cas9-based Competition Assays
11:05

Investigation of Genetic Dependencies Using CRISPR-Cas9-based Competition Assays

Published on: January 7, 2019

9.4K

Systematic Comparison of CRISPR and shRNA Screens to Identify Essential Genes Using a Graph-Based Unsupervised

Yulian Ding1,2,3, Connor Denomy4, Andrew Freywald5

  • 1Central for High-Performance Computing, Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, China.

Cells
|October 15, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Comparing RNA interference (shRNA) and CRISPR screening, this study found shRNA better for low-expression essential genes. Both methods work for high-expression genes, suggesting a combined approach for comprehensive essential gene identification.

Keywords:
CRISPRconsensus maximizationessential genegene expressiongraph-based modelshRNA

More Related Videos

Pooled CRISPR-Based Genetic Screens in Mammalian Cells
00:09

Pooled CRISPR-Based Genetic Screens in Mammalian Cells

Published on: September 4, 2019

21.7K
Cell Surface Receptor Identification Using Genome-Scale CRISPR/Cas9 Genetic Screens
08:49

Cell Surface Receptor Identification Using Genome-Scale CRISPR/Cas9 Genetic Screens

Published on: June 6, 2020

14.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Investigation of Genetic Dependencies Using CRISPR-Cas9-based Competition Assays
11:05

Investigation of Genetic Dependencies Using CRISPR-Cas9-based Competition Assays

Published on: January 7, 2019

9.4K
Pooled CRISPR-Based Genetic Screens in Mammalian Cells
00:09

Pooled CRISPR-Based Genetic Screens in Mammalian Cells

Published on: September 4, 2019

21.7K
Cell Surface Receptor Identification Using Genome-Scale CRISPR/Cas9 Genetic Screens
08:49

Cell Surface Receptor Identification Using Genome-Scale CRISPR/Cas9 Genetic Screens

Published on: June 6, 2020

14.5K

Area of Science:

  • Genomics
  • Molecular Biology
  • Bioinformatics

Background:

  • Essential gene identification is crucial for understanding cellular functions and developing targeted therapies.
  • RNA interference (shRNA) and CRISPR-Cas9 are common screening platforms, but their results often diverge.
  • Discrepancies raise questions about platform selection and reliability in essential gene discovery.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically compare the performance of shRNA and CRISPR screening for essential gene identification.
  • To evaluate platform efficacy across varying gene expression levels in a large cell line panel.
  • To develop a robust method for identifying common and cell-line-specific essential genes.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a graph-based unsupervised machine learning model to predict common essential genes and correct for false positives.
  • Intersected experimentally derived essential genes with predicted common essential genes to account for cell-line specificity.
  • Employed statistical analyses to compare shRNA and CRISPR performance in identifying differentially expressed essential genes.

Main Results:

  • shRNA demonstrated superior performance in identifying lowly expressed essential genes compared to CRISPR.
  • Both shRNA and CRISPR effectively identified highly expressed essential genes, but with minimal overlap, indicating complementarity.
  • No single gene was found to be universally essential across all 254 cancer cell lines analyzed.

Conclusions:

  • A combination of shRNA and CRISPR screening is recommended for comprehensive identification of highly expressed essential genes.
  • The choice of screening platform should consider gene expression levels for optimal essential gene discovery.
  • The absence of universally essential genes highlights the heterogeneity of cancer cell dependencies.