↓ Skip to main content

Rscreenorm: normalization of CRISPR and siRNA screen data for more reproducible hit selection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2018
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
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Rscreenorm: normalization of CRISPR and siRNA screen data for more reproducible hit selection
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2306-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Costa Bachas, Jasmina Hodzic, Johannes C. van der Mijn, Chantal Stoepker, Henk M. W. Verheul, Rob M. F. Wolthuis, Emanuela Felley-Bosco, Wessel N. van Wieringen, Victor W. van Beusechem, Ruud H. Brakenhoff, Renée X. de Menezes

Abstract

Reproducibility of hits from independent CRISPR or siRNA screens is poor. This is partly due to data normalization primarily addressing technical variability within independent screens, and not the technical differences between them. We present "rscreenorm", a method that standardizes the functional data ranges between screens using assay controls, and subsequently performs a piecewise-linear normalization to make data distributions across all screens comparable. In simulation studies, rscreenorm reduces false positives. Using two multiple-cell lines siRNA screens, rscreenorm increased reproducibility between 27 and 62% for hits, and up to 5-fold for non-hits. Using publicly available CRISPR-Cas screen data, application of commonly used median centering yields merely 34% of overlapping hits, in contrast with rscreenorm yielding 84% of overlapping hits. Furthermore, rscreenorm yielded at most 8% discordant results, whilst median-centering yielded as much as 55%. Rscreenorm yields more consistent results and keeps false positive rates under control, improving reproducibility of genetic screens data analysis from multiple cell lines.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 22%
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 25%
Computer Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
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 16 January 2020.
All research outputs
#14,139,149
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,519
of 7,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,707
of 333,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#53
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 333,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.