Benchmarking Perturbation Tools for the Noncoding Genome

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-06 · read from full text

This paper benchmarks five loss-of-function genome perturbation tools for deciphering the noncoding genome, using massively parallel genetic screening to compare SpCas9 single-gRNA cleavage/CRISPRi approaches against paired-gRNA dual-SpCas9, Big Papi dual-SpCas9/SaCas9, and dual-enAsCas12a fragment deletion methods. It reports that for cis-regulatory elements such as enhancers, dual-SpCas9 shows superior efficiency in destroying functional genomic regions, while for noncoding RNA genes, dual-SpCas9 performs in addition to recommending RNA interference to help distinguish transcript-dependent from transcript-independent roles. A deep learning model (DeepDC) and web server are presented to support optimal dual-SpCas9 paired gRNA design for fragment deletion, with the main caveat being that the comparisons are framed around these specific perturbation modalities and readouts rather than demonstrating effectiveness across all possible noncoding elements. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Deciphering the functionality of the noncoding genome which includes important cis -regulatory elements (CREs) and transcribed noncoding RNA genes remains technically challenging. Here, using massively parallel genetic screening, we systematically benchmark the performance of five representative loss-of-function perturbation tools, including single guide RNA (gRNA) mediated SpCas9 cleavage or CRISPR interference, and paired gRNA (pgRNA) involved dual-SpCas9, Big Papi (paired SpCas9 and SaCas9) or dual-enAsCas12a fragment deletion methods, in decoding the roles of the noncoding genome. For targeting CREs such as enhancer, dual-SpCas9 outperforms other methods with superior efficiency of destroying functional genomic regions. For perturbing noncoding RNA genes, in addition to dual-SpCas9, other RNA-targeting methods such as RNA interference are recommended to discriminate transcript-dependent or -independent roles. A deep learning model DeepDC with associated web server is built to facilitate optimal dual-SpCas9 pgRNA design for efficiently deleting a genomic fragment. Together, our work provides practical guidance on selecting appropriate loss-of-function tools to resolve the functional complexity of the noncoding genome.
Full text 1,326 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Deciphering the functionality of the noncoding genome which includes important cis-regulatory elements (CREs) and transcribed noncoding RNA genes remains technically challenging. Here, using massively parallel genetic screening, we systematically benchmark the performance of five representative loss-of-function perturbation tools, including single guide RNA (gRNA) mediated SpCas9 cleavage or CRISPR interference, and paired gRNA (pgRNA) involved dual-SpCas9, Big Papi (paired SpCas9 and SaCas9) or dual-enAsCas12a fragment deletion methods, in decoding the roles of the noncoding genome. For targeting CREs such as enhancer, dual-SpCas9 outperforms other methods with superior efficiency of destroying functional genomic regions. For perturbing noncoding RNA genes, in addition to dual-SpCas9, other RNA-targeting methods such as RNA interference are recommended to discriminate transcript-dependent or -independent roles. A deep learning model DeepDC with associated web server is built to facilitate optimal dual-SpCas9 pgRNA design for efficiently deleting a genomic fragment. Together, our work provides practical guidance on selecting appropriate loss-of-function tools to resolve the functional complexity of the noncoding genome. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00