↓ Skip to main content

A permutation-based non-parametric analysis of CRISPR screen data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A permutation-based non-parametric analysis of CRISPR screen data
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3938-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gaoxiang Jia, Xinlei Wang, Guanghua Xiao

Abstract

Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) screens are usually implemented in cultured cells to identify genes with critical functions. Although several methods have been developed or adapted to analyze CRISPR screening data, no single specific algorithm has gained popularity. Thus, rigorous procedures are needed to overcome the shortcomings of existing algorithms. We developed a Permutation-Based Non-Parametric Analysis (PBNPA) algorithm, which computes p-values at the gene level by permuting sgRNA labels, and thus it avoids restrictive distributional assumptions. Although PBNPA is designed to analyze CRISPR data, it can also be applied to analyze genetic screens implemented with siRNAs or shRNAs and drug screens. We compared the performance of PBNPA with competing methods on simulated data as well as on real data. PBNPA outperformed recent methods designed for CRISPR screen analysis, as well as methods used for analyzing other functional genomics screens, in terms of Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves and False Discovery Rate (FDR) control for simulated data under various settings. Remarkably, the PBNPA algorithm showed better consistency and FDR control on published real data as well. PBNPA yields more consistent and reliable results than its competitors, especially when the data quality is low. R package of PBNPA is available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PBNPA/ .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Unspecified 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,946,971
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,163
of 10,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,300
of 315,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#122
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,691 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.