A method for benchmarking genetic screens reveals a predominant mitochondrial bias
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present FLEX (Functional evaluation of experimental perturbations), a pipeline that leverages several functional annotation resources to establish reference standards for benchmarking human genome-wide CRISPR screen data and methods for analyzing them. FLEX provides a quantitative measurement of the functional information captured by a given gene-pair dataset and a means to explore the diversity of functions captured by the input dataset. We apply FLEX to analyze data from the diverse cell line screens generated by the DepMap project. We identify a predominant mitochondria-associated signal within co-essentiality networks derived from these data and explore the basis of this signal. Our analysis and time-resolved CRISPR screens in a single cell line suggest that the variable phenotypes associated with mitochondria genes across cells may reflect screen dynamics and protein stability effects rather than genetic dependencies. We characterize this functional bias and demonstrate its relevance for interpreting differential hits in any CRISPR screening context. More generally, we demonstrate the utility of the FLEX pipeline for performing robust comparative evaluations of CRISPR screens or methods for processing them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it