Knott, G. J. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering. Science 361, 866–869 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hille, F. et al. The biology of CRISPR-Cas: backward and forward. Cell 172, 1239–1259 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S. & Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157, 1262–1278 (2014).
Google Scholar
Haley, B. & Roudnicky, F. Functional genomics for cancer drug target discovery. Cancer Cell 38, 31–43 (2020).
Google Scholar
Doench, J. G. Am i ready for CRISPR? A user’s guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 67–80 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR–Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019).
Google Scholar
Shalem, O., Sanjana, N. E. & Zhang, F. High-throughput functional genomics using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 299–311 (2015).
Google Scholar
Ford, K., McDonald, D. & Mali, P. Functional genomics via CRISPR–Cas. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 48–65 (2019).
Google Scholar
Costanzo, M. et al. Global genetic networks and the genotype-to-phenotype relationship. Cell 177, 85–100 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gonatopoulos-Pournatzis, T. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 interrogation of splicing networks reveals a mechanism for recognition of autism-misregulated neuronal microexons. Mol. Cell 72, 510–524.e12 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hart, T. et al. High-resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163, 1515–1526 (2015).
Google Scholar
Liu, Y. et al. CRISPR activation screens systematically identify factors that drive neuronal fate and reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell 23, 758–771.e8 (2018).
Google Scholar
Patel, S. J. et al. Identification of essential genes for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 548, 537–542 (2017).
Google Scholar
Park, R. J. et al. A genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies a restricted set of HIV host dependency factors. Nat. Genet. 49, 193–203 (2016).
Google Scholar
Haney, M. S. et al. Identification of phagocytosis regulators using magnetic genome-wide CRISPR screens. Nat. Genet. 50, 1716–1727 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lawson, K. A. et al. Functional genomic landscape of cancer-intrinsic evasion of killing by T cells. Nature 586, 120–126 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tian, R. et al. CRISPR interference-based platform for multimodal genetic screens in human iPSC-derived neurons. Neuron 104, 239–255.e12 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mair, B. et al. Essential gene profiles for human pluripotent stem cells identify uncharacterized genes and substrate dependencies. Cell Rep. 27, 599–615.e12 (2019).
Google Scholar
Olivieri, M. et al. A genetic map of the response to DNA damage in human cells. Cell 182, 481–496.e21 (2020).
Google Scholar
Horlbeck, M. A. et al. Mapping the genetic landscape of human cells. Cell 174, 953–967.e22 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gonatopoulos-Pournatzis, T. et al. Genetic interaction mapping and exon-resolution functional genomics with a hybrid Cas9–Cas12a platform. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 638–648 (2020).
Google Scholar
Najm, F. J. et al. Orthologous CRISPR-Cas9 enzymes for combinatorial genetic screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 179–189 (2018).
Google Scholar
Han, K. et al. Synergistic drug combinations for cancer identified in a CRISPR screen for pairwise genetic interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 463–474 (2017).
Google Scholar
Norman, T. M. et al. Exploring genetic interaction manifolds constructed from rich single-cell phenotypes. Science 365, 786–793 (2019).
Google Scholar
DeWeirdt, P. C. et al. Optimization of AsCas12a for combinatorial genetic screens in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 94–104 (2020).
Google Scholar
Shen, J. P. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions. Nat. Methods 14, 573–576 (2017).
Google Scholar
Irimia, M. et al. A highly conserved program of neuronal microexons is misregulated in autistic brains. Cell 159, 1511–1523 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kahles, A. et al. Comprehensive analysis of alternative splicing across tumors from 8,705 patients. Cancer Cell 34, 211–224.e6 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gandal, M. J. et al. Transcriptome-wide isoform-level dysregulation in ASD, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Science 362, eaat8127 (2018).
Google Scholar
Calabrese, C. et al. Genomic basis for RNA alterations in cancer. Nature 578, 129–136 (2020).
Google Scholar
Makarova, K. S. et al. Evolutionary classification of CRISPR–Cas systems: a burst of class 2 and derived variants. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 67–83 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).
Google Scholar
Zetsche, B. et al. Multiplex gene editing by CRISPR–Cpf1 using a single crRNA array. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 31–34 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fonfara, I., Richter, H., Bratovič, M., Le Rhun, A. & Charpentier, E. The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA. Nature 532, 517–521 (2016).
Google Scholar
Konermann, S. et al. Transcriptome engineering with RNA-targeting type VI-D CRISPR effectors. Cell 173, 665–676.e14 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cox, D. B. T. et al. RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science 358, 1019–1027 (2017).
Google Scholar
Wessels, H. H. et al. Massively parallel Cas13 screens reveal principles for guide RNA design. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 722–727 (2020).
Google Scholar
Thomas, J. D. et al. RNA isoform screens uncover the essentiality and tumor-suppressor activity of ultraconserved poison exons. Nat. Genet. 52, 84–94 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zhu, S. et al. Genome-scale deletion screening of human long non-coding RNAs using a paired-guide RNA CRISPR-Cas9 library. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1279–1286 (2016).
Google Scholar
Zhao, D. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 metabolic screens reveal critical redox control points dependent on the KEAP1-NRF2 regulatory axis. Mol. Cell 69, 699–708.e7 (2018).
Google Scholar
Boettcher, M. et al. Dual gene activation and knockout screen reveals directional dependencies in genetic networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 170–178 (2018).
Google Scholar
Liu, J. et al. Pooled library screening with multiplexed Cpf1 library. Nat. Commun. 10, 3144 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dede, M., McLaughlin, M., Kim, E. & Hart, T. Multiplex enCas12a screens detect functional buffering among paralogs otherwise masked in monogenic Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol. 21, 262 (2020).
Google Scholar
Chow, R. D. et al. In vivo profiling of metastatic double knockouts through CRISPR–Cpf1 screens. Nat. Methods 16, 405–408 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gier, R. A. et al. High-performance CRISPR-Cas12a genome editing for combinatorial genetic screening. Nat. Commun. 11, 3455 (2020).
Google Scholar
ter Brake, O. et al. Lentiviral vector design for multiple shRNA expression and durable HIV-1 inhibition. Mol. Ther. 16, 557–564 (2008).
Google Scholar
Sack, L. M., Davoli, T., Xu, Q., Li, M. Z. & Elledge, S. J. Sources of error in mammalian genetic screens. G3 (Bethesda) 6, 2781–2790 (2016).
Google Scholar
Adamson, B. et al. A multiplexed single-cell CRISPR screening platform enables systematic dissection of the unfolded protein response. Cell 167, 1867–1882.e21 (2016).
Google Scholar
Vidigal, J. A. & Ventura, A. Rapid and efficient one-step generation of paired gRNA CRISPR-Cas9 libraries. Nat. Commun. 6, 8083 (2015).
Google Scholar
Brown, K. R., Mair, B., Soste, M. & Moffat, J. CRISPR screens are feasible in TP53 wild‐type cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 15, e8679 (2019).
Google Scholar
Haapaniemi, E., Botla, S., Persson, J., Schmierer, B. & Taipale, J. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nat. Med. 24, 927–930 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ihry, R. J. et al. p53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Med. 24, 939–946 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bowden, A. R. et al. Parallel CRISPR-Cas9 screens clarify impacts of p53 on screen performance. Elife 9, e55325 (2020).
Google Scholar
Horlbeck, M. A. et al. Compact and highly active next-generation libraries for CRISPR-mediated gene repression and activation. Elife 5, e19760 (2016).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442 (2013).
Google Scholar
Gilbert, L. A. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159, 647–661 (2014).
Google Scholar
Tak, Y. E. et al. Inducible and multiplex gene regulation using CRISPR-Cpf1-based transcription factors. Nat. Methods 14, 1163–1166 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Engineered CRISPR–Cas12a variants with increased activities and improved targeting ranges for gene, epigenetic and base editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 276–282 (2019).
Google Scholar
Konermann, S. et al. Genome-scale transcriptional activation by an engineered CRISPR-Cas9 complex. Nature 517, 583–588 (2015).
Google Scholar
Mali, P. et al. CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 833–838 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hanna, R. E. & Doench, J. G. A case of mistaken identity. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 802–804 (2018).
Google Scholar
Feldman, D., Singh, A., Garrity, A. J. & Blainey, P. C. Lentiviral co-packaging mitigates the effects of intermolecular recombination and multiple integrations in pooled genetic screens. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/262121 (2018).
Hegde, M., Strand, C., Hanna, R. E. & Doench, J. G. Uncoupling of sgRNAs from their associated barcodes during PCR amplification of combinatorial CRISPR screens. PLoS One 13, e0197547 (2018).
Google Scholar
Hart, T. et al. Evaluation and design of genome-wide CRISPR/SpCas9 knockout screens. G3 (Bethesda) 7, 2719–2727 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ward, H. N. et al. Analysis of combinatorial CRISPR screens with the Orthrus scoring pipeline. Nat. Protoc. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00596-0 (2021).
Aregger, M. et al. Systematic mapping of genetic interactions for de novo fatty acid synthesis identifies C12orf49 as a regulator of lipid metabolism. Nat. Metab. 2, 499–513 (2020).
Google Scholar
Meyers, R. M. et al. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49, 1779–1784 (2017).
Google Scholar
Behan, F. M. et al. Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR–Cas9 screens. Nature 568, 511–516 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, T. et al. Identification and characterization of essential genes in the human genome. Science 350, 1096–1101 (2015).
Google Scholar
Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014).
Google Scholar
Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jost, M. et al. Combined CRISPRi/a-based chemical genetic screens reveal that rigosertib is a microtubule-destabilizing agent. Mol. Cell 68, 210–223.e6 (2017).
Google Scholar
Mair, B. et al. High-throughput genome-wide phenotypic screening via immunomagnetic cell sorting. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 796–805 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wroblewska, A. et al. Protein barcodes enable high-dimensional single-cell CRISPR screens. Cell 175, 1141–1155.e16 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wang, B. et al. Integrative analysis of pooled CRISPR genetic screens using MAGeCKFlute. Nat. Protoc. 14, 756–780 (2019).
Google Scholar
Aregger, M., Chandrashekhar, M., Tong, A. H. Y., Chan, K. & Moffat, J. Pooled lentiviral CRISPR-Cas9 screens for functional genomics in mammalian cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 1869, 169–188 (2019).
Google Scholar
de Kegel, B. & Ryan, C. J. Paralog buffering contributes to the variable essentiality of genes in cancer cell lines. PLoS Genet 15, e1008466 (2019).
Google Scholar
Anzalone, A. V., Koblan, L. W. & Liu, D. R. Genome editing with CRISPR–Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 824–844 (2020).
Google Scholar
Huang, T. P., Newby, G. A. & Liu, D. R. Precision genome editing using cytosine and adenine base editors in mammalian cells. Nat. Protoc. 16, 1089–1128 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sanson, K. R. et al. Optimized libraries for CRISPR-Cas9 genetic screens with multiple modalities. Nat. Commun. 9, 5416 (2018).
Google Scholar
Listgarten, J. et al. Prediction of off-target activities for the end-to-end design of CRISPR guide RNAs. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 38–47 (2018).
Google Scholar
Perez, A. R. et al. GuideScan software for improved single and paired CRISPR guide RNA design. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 347–349 (2017).
Google Scholar
Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. Deep learning improves prediction of CRISPR-Cpf1 guide RNA activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 239–241 (2018).
Google Scholar
Tycko, J. et al. Mitigation of off-target toxicity in CRISPR-Cas9 screens for essential non-coding elements. Nat. Commun. 10, 4063 (2019).
Google Scholar
Perez, A. R., Sala, L., Perez, R. K. & Vidigal, J. A. Computational correction of off-targeting for CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/809970 (2020).
