Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 30.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Genet. 2017 Oct 30;49(12):1779–1784. doi: 10.1038/ng.3984

Computational correction of copy-number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells

Robin M Meyers 1,, Jordan G Bryan 1,, James M McFarland 1, Barbara A Weir 1, Ann E Sizemore 1, Han Xu 1, Neekesh V Dharia 1,2,3,4, Phillip G Montgomery 1, Glenn S Cowley 1, Sasha Pantel 1, Amy Goodale 1, Yenarae Lee 1, Levi D Ali 1, Guozhi Jiang 1, Rakela Lubonja 1, William F Harrington 1, Matthew Strickland 1, Ting Wu 1, Derek C Hawes 1, Victor A Zhivich 1, Meghan R Wyatt 1, Zohra Kalani 1, Jaime J Chang 1, Michael Okamoto 1, Kimberly Stegmaier 1,2,3,4, Todd R Golub 1,2,3,4,5, Jesse S Boehm 1, Francisca Vazquez 1,2, David E Root 1, William C Hahn 1,2,4,6,*, Aviad Tsherniak 1,*
PMCID: PMC5709193  NIHMSID: NIHMS910985  PMID: 29083409

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized gene editing both on single genes and in multiplexed loss-of-function screens, enabling precise genome-scale identification of genes essential to proliferation and survival of cancer cells1,2. However, previous studies reported that a gene-independent anti-proliferative effect of Cas9-mediated DNA cleavage confounds such measurement of genetic dependency, leading to false positive results in copy number amplified regions3,4. We developed CERES, a computational method to estimate gene dependency levels from CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens while accounting for the copy-number-specific effect. As part of our efforts to define a cancer dependency map, we performed genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens across 342 cancer cell lines and applied CERES to this dataset. We found that CERES reduced false positive results and estimated sgRNA activity for both this dataset and previously published screens performed with different sgRNA libraries. Here, we demonstrate the utility of this collection of screens, upon CERES correction, in revealing cancer-type-specific vulnerabilities.


Significant efforts using loss-of-function genetic screens to systematically identify genes essential to the proliferation and survival of cancer cells have been reported110. Genes identified by these approaches may represent specific genetic vulnerabilities of cancer cells, suggesting treatment strategies and directing the development of novel therapeutics. The CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing system has proven to be a powerful tool for multiplexed screening due to its relative ease of application and increased specificity compared to RNA interference technology11.

However, we and others have recently observed that measurements of cell proliferation in genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 loss-of-function screens are influenced by the genomic copy number (CN) of the region targeted by the sgRNA-Cas9 complex1,3,4. Targeting Cas9 to DNA sequences within regions of high CN gain creates multiple DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), inducing a gene-independent DNA damage response and a G2 cell-cycle arrest phenotype3. This systematic, sequence-independent effect due to DNA cleavage (copy-number effect) confounds the measurement of the consequences of gene deletion on cell viability (gene-knockout effect) and is detectable even among low-level CN amplifications and deletions. In particular, this phenomenon hinders interpretation of experiments performed in cancer cell lines that harbor many genomic amplifications since genes in these regions represent a major source of false positives3,4. Existing methods to handle the copy-number effect adopt filtering schemes9, which preclude examination of data from within amplified regions and ignore the effect at low-level alterations. Here, we present CERES, a method to estimate gene dependency from essentiality screens while computationally correcting the copy-number effect, enabling unbiased interpretation of gene dependency at all levels of CN.

As part of our efforts to define a Cancer Dependency Map, a catalog of cell line-specific genetic and chemical vulnerabilities10,12, we performed genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 loss-of-function screens in 342 cancer cell lines representing 27 cell lineages (Supplementary Table 1, http://depmap.org/ceres) using the Avana sgRNA library13 (Supplementary Table 2) and assessed the effects of introducing each sgRNA on cell proliferation (Online Methods). After applying quality control measures, ROC analysis of sgRNAs targeting “gold standard” common core essential and nonessential genes14 demonstrated high screen quality in all cell lines (Fig. 1a). This collection of screens surpasses the scale of existing comparable datasets by roughly tenfold. To confirm the generalizability of our results in independent screens performed with different sgRNA libraries, we reanalyzed two published datasets derived from screens across 33 cancer cell lines of diverse cell lineage (GeCKOv2) 3 and 14 AML cell lines (Wang2017) 9 (Supplementary Fig. 1a).

Figure 1. Genomic copy number confounds the interpretation of CRISPR-Cas9 loss-of-function proliferation screens of cancer cell lines.

Figure 1

(a) Screen quality for each cell line in the panel (n=342), as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in discriminating between predefined sets of common core essential and nonessential genes. (b) The depletion of sgRNAs is regressed against the number of perfect-match genomic cut sites using a simple saturating linear fit, which is plotted for each cell line, colored by lineage, and scaled such that the median of sgRNAs targeting cell-essential genes is at −1, marked by a dashed line. (c) Genes are ranked by the mean depletion of targeting sgRNAs (average guide score) and plotted for an example cell line. Values of 0 and −1 represent the median scores of nonessential and cell-essential genes, respectively, indicated by dashed lines. Below, depletion ranks of genes involved in fundamental cell processes and genes at various ranges of CN amplification are shown. (d) The median and interquartile range (IQR) of depletion ranks for the 100 most amplified genes per cell line are plotted. Color indicates mean amplification level of these genes. The gray-shaded area indicates the IQR of all genes screened.

Using genomic copy number data from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE)15, we assessed the 342 cell lines screened in our Avana dataset for sensitivity to the copy-number effect as in Aguirre et al. 3. In consonance with previous observations, the relationship held in every cell line in our panel, where sgRNAs targeting more genomic loci were on average more depleted, frequently to levels at or below the depletion of sgRNAs targeting cell-essential genes (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Fig. 1b,c). In each of the three datasets, some of the observed variability in sensitivity was explained by the p53 mutational status of each line in CCLE (Supplementary Fig. 1d).

To quantify the extent to which this sgRNA-level effect translates into false positive gene dependencies, we ranked the genes in each cell line by the average depletion of their targeting sgRNAs (average guide score). In an example breast cancer cell line, HCC1419, high-ranking genes were enriched for both genes involved in fundamental cellular processes and genes with amplified CN (Fig. 1c). The depletion ranks of the 100 genes with the largest CN measurements were significantly higher than expected for the majority of cell lines (298/342 with p < 0.05, one-sample one-tailed K-S test; Fig. 1d, Supplementary Fig. 2a) and the extent of enrichment was significantly correlated with the average CN of these genes (Spearman ρ = 0.61, p < 10−15), consistent with previous studies (Supplementary Fig. 2b).

To decouple the gene-knockout effect from the copy-number effect, we developed CERES, which computationally models the measured sgRNA depletion (D) as a sum of these two effects (Fig. 2, Online Methods). Specifically, for each sgRNA i and cell line j, CERES assumes the following model (Equation 1):

Dij=qi(kGi(hk+gkj)+fj(lLiClj))+oi+ε

where ε is a zero-mean, independent Gaussian noise term. The gene-knockout effect is a sum of cell line specific (gkj) and shared (hk) effects, which are aggregated across any gene targeted by sgRNA i (Gi). The copy-number effect is modeled by a piecewise linear spline, fj, evaluated at the number of genomic sites targeted, determined by the target loci (Li) and the CN at each locus (Clj) (Online Methods). The cumulative depletion effects are then scaled by a guide activity score (qi), restricted to values between 0 and 1, to capture and mitigate the influence of low-quality reagents13,16,17. The offset term oi accounts for noise in the measurement of sgRNA abundance in the reference pool (Online Methods). CERES infers the gene-knockout effects and all other parameters by fitting the model to the observed data via alternating least squares regression (Online Methods). The inferred gene-knockout effects are then scaled per cell line such that scores of 0 and −1 represent the median effects of nonessential genes and common core essential genes, respectively.

Figure 2. Schematic of the CERES computational model.

Figure 2

As input, CERES takes sgRNA depletion and CN data for all cell lines screened. During the inference procedure, CERES models the depletion values as a sum of gene-knockout and copy-number effects, multiplied by a guide activity score parameter. CERES then outputs the values of the parameters that produce the highest likelihood of the observed data under the model.

We applied CERES to the Avana dataset of 342 essentiality screens, as well as the GeCKOv2 and Wang2017 datasets, and analyzed the inferred gene-knockout effects (Supplementary Tables 3–5). As expected, CERES markedly reduced the relationship between CN and gene dependency found in the uncorrected average guide scores (Fig. 3a, Supplementary Fig. 3a) and removed it nearly entirely among unexpressed genes, determined using CCLE expression data (Supplementary Fig. 3b). For each gene, we correlated its CN measurements to its dependency scores before and after correction and found that CERES shifted the mean correlation to near zero (Supplementary Fig. 3c). CERES also improved the identification of essential genes in 339 out of 342 screens, as measured by the recall of common core essential genes at a 5% false discovery rate (FDR) of nonessential genes2, by an average of 13.8 percentage points (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Fig. 4a) (Online Methods). This improvement was substantially better than a simple linear model used to correct the relationship between average guide score and CN (Supplementary Fig. 4b) (Online Methods). Furthermore, CERES preserved an average of 134 genes per cell line that would have been removed using a simple filtering scheme. On average, six of these filtered genes per cell line scored as essential below a threshold of −0.6 after CERES correction (Supplementary Fig. 4c). Reassuringly, CERES preserved expected cancer-specific dependencies, even in amplified regions, such as KRAS in an example amplification on chromosome 12p of the DAN-G pancreatic cancer cell line (Fig. 3c, Supplementary Fig. 5). Additionally, KRAS-mutant cell lines remained substantially enriched over wild-type for KRAS gene dependency (Fig. 3d), which generalized to other known oncogenes (Supplementary Fig. 6).

Figure 3. CERES corrects the copy-number effect and improves the specificity of fCRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens while preserving true gene dependencies.

Figure 3

(a) Boxplots of gene dependency scores are shown across CN for uncorrected average guide scores and CERES gene dependency scores. Data are scaled as in Fig. 1c. (b) The recall of cell-essential genes at a 5% FDR of nonessential genes is plotted for each cell line before (red) and after (blue) CERES correction. Precision-recall curves are inset for example cell lines with poor recall (bottom left) and good recall (top right) before CERES correction. (c) An example amplified region on chromosome 12p is shown for the DAN-G pancreatic cell line. The top track represents CN with amplifications shown in red. The middle track and bottom tracks show the average guide score and CERES score, respectively, for each gene in this region. The purple line is representing the median value in each CN segment. KRAS is highlighted in orange. (d) KRAS gene dependency and CN are shown for all cell lines after CERES correction, with mutant KRAS lines in orange.

CERES estimates a guide activity score for each sgRNA used in the screens (Supplementary Tables 6–8). While it is infeasible to experimentally validate the activity of all, or even most, sgRNAs in a genome-scale library, sequence determinants have proven useful in the prediction of on-target activity13,18,19. The Avana sgRNA library was optimized using such predictions. Fittingly, CERES estimated higher guide activity scores on average for the Avana dataset relative to GeCKOv2, with a nearly twenty-fold increase in the ratio of high- to low-activity sgRNAs (161.3 to 1 and 8.3 to 1; Fig. 4a). The guide activity scores for the 4,770 sgRNAs common to both libraries showed substantial agreement (Spearman ρ = 0.53, p < 10−15; Fig. 4b), demonstrating that CERES captured a measure of sgRNA activity that is reproducible across independent collections of screens (Supplementary Fig. 7a,b). For both the GeCKOv2 and Avana libraries, we compared CERES guide activity scores to sequence-based predictions of sgRNA activity (Doench-Root scores) 13 and found significant correspondence (Avana: Pearson ρ = 0.21, p < 10−15; GeCKOv2: Pearson ρ = 0.37, p < 10−15; Fig. 4c). Taken together, these results demonstrate that the guide activity scores inferred by CERES are useful for estimating gene-knockout effects and, furthermore, suggests that they could assist in the selection of reagents for follow-up experiments.

Figure 4. CERES estimates guide activity scores for each sgRNA.

Figure 4

(a) sgRNAs are binned into groups with high (0.9–1), moderate (0.2–0.9), and low (0–0.2) guide activity scores. The compositions of guide activity scores are shown for the set of screens performed with the GeCKOv2 and the Avana sgRNA libraries. (b) For the set of 4,770 sgRNAs shared between the GeCKOv2 and Avana libraries, sgRNAs are ranked by guide activity scores in each dataset and are plotted against each other, with darker blue representing a greater density of sgRNAs. (c) sgRNAs are binned by predicted on-target activity using the Doench-Root score, and the composition of CERES-estimated guide activity scores is shown for each dataset.

To identify cancer-specific genetic vulnerabilities, we used a metric of differential dependency representing the strength of dependency in a cell line relative to all other lines screened (Online Methods). We assessed an upper bound on the number of false positive differential dependencies due to CN amplifications by calculating the percentage of amplified genes at every possible threshold of differential dependency. In the uncorrected data, the percentage of amplified genes increased at stronger dependency thresholds, climbing above 30% at the highest levels of differential dependency, which CERES substantially reduces (Fig. 5a, Supplementary Fig. 8a). We next used a similar procedure to examine unexpressed genes, whose deletion or editing is not expected to induce phenotypic effects, and which represent an overt source of false positives if scored as differentially dependent. We found that for genes below a differential dependency of −8, CERES reduced the percentage of unexpressed genes from 6.6% to 0.9%, indicating a substantial improvement in specificity (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Fig. 8b).

Figure 5. CERES reduces false positive differential dependencies.

Figure 5

(a) The percentage of genes on amplified regions (CN > 4) below a given differential dependency threshold is plotted for the uncorrected average guide score in red and the CERES gene dependency score in blue. (b) The percentage of unexpressed genes (log2RPKM < −1) below a given differential dependency score is plotted as in (a).

A dataset of this scale enables the discovery of genetic vulnerabilities specific to a subset of cancer cell lines defined by some cellular context, such as cell lineage. We hypothesized that in this setting, copy-number effects driven by recurrent CN alterations, even with small effect sizes, could introduce false positives. For each gene, we compared average guide scores in 26 breast cancer cell lines to those of all other cell lines (Online methods). Indeed, we found several differential dependencies resident on chromosome 8q, which is recurrently amplified in breast tumors (Fig. 6a). However, when we used CERES-corrected dependency scores, we found that only two of the original chr8q genes, TRPS1 and GRHL2, remained (Fig. 6b). To confirm this finding using a complementary assay, we analyzed this set of genes in a dataset derived from genome-scale RNAi screens across 501 cancer cell lines20. We found that these were the only two genes on chr8q that scored as differentially dependent in the 34 breast lines, while most genes in other regions validated (Supplementary Fig. 9a,b). Previous studies have implicated these transcription factors in breast cancer progression21,22, and the high expression levels of these and other transcription factors in breast lines identified suggest that they are likely to be true differential dependencies (Supplementary Fig. 9c). We extended this analysis to all cell lineages with recurrently amplified chromosome arms and quantified the enrichment of differential dependencies before and after CERES correction in each context. We observed that CERES reduced the fraction of differential dependencies on the recurrently amplified chromosome arm in 24 out of 25 such cases (Fig. 6c) (Online Methods).

Figure 6. CERES reduces false positives among lineage-specific differential dependencies due to recurrently amplified chromosome arms.

Figure 6

(a) The distributions of differential dependencies in breast lines are plotted red for genes on chromosome 8q (commonly gained in breast tumors) and black for all other genes. Below, the differential dependency of each gene is plotted against the FDR-corrected p-value, calculated from a student’s t-test, with colors as above. The dashed line represents an FDR of 5%. (b) Data are shown for CERES-inferred gene effects as in (a). (c) The percentages of lineage-specific differential dependencies (FDR < 0.05) that are on recurrently amplified chromosome arms are shown, before and after CERES correction.

While CERES leverages data across many cell lines to infer guide activity scores, we confirmed that this approach can be applied to datasets of any size - even a screen of a single cell line - given predetermined guide activity scores. These may be pre-computed from a larger set of screens, predicted using available tools, or assumed uniform. In random sub-samplings of cell lines from the Avana dataset, CERES performed nearly as well as when applied to the full set. Furthermore, we tested CERES on single cell lines, using fixed uniform guide activities, and found that the median improvement per cell line was over 97% that of the run on all 342 cell lines (Supplementary Fig 10) (Online Methods).

In summary, we introduce a large set of uniformly performed CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens of cancer cell lines, propose a methodology to estimate gene dependency while removing false positives due to copy-number effects, and demonstrate the power of these two resources in revealing genetic vulnerabilities of cancer. To facilitate the use of the Avana dataset and CERES, we make the software available as an R package at https://depmap.org/ceres, along with all data and analysis scripts used in this study.

Online Methods

CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screening assay

Cancer cell lines were transduced with a lentiviral vector expressing the Cas9 nuclease under blasticidin selection (pXPR-311Cas9). Each Cas9-expressing cell line was subjected to a Cas9 activity assay3 to characterize the efficacy of CRISPR/Cas9 in these cell lines (Supplementary Table 1). Cell lines with less than 45% measured Cas9 activity were considered ineligible for screening. Stable polyclonal Cas9+ cell lines were then infected in replicate (n = 3) at low multiplicity of infection (MOI < 1) with a library of 76,106 unique sgRNAs (Avana), which after filtering out sex chromosomes was composed of 70,086 targeting 17,670 genes (~4 sgRNAs per gene) annotated in the consensus coding sequence (CCDS) database, and 995 non-targeting control sgRNAs (Supplementary Table 2). Cells were selected in puromycin and blasticidin for 7 days and then passaged without selection while maintaining a representation of 500 cells per sgRNA until 21 days after infection. Genomic DNA was purified from endpoint cell pellets, the sgRNA barcodes are PCR amplified with sufficient gDNA to maintain representation, and the PCR products are sequenced using standard Illumina machines and protocols.

Preprocessing and quality control

After sequencing the sgRNA barcodes, raw barcode counts are deconvoluted from sequence data using PoolQ software (http://portals.broadinstitute.org/gpp/public/dir/download?dirpath=protocols/screening&filename=Pooled_Screening_Deconvolution_using_PoolQ.pdf) and are summed across sequencing lanes. Samples were removed if they failed to reach 15 million reads. We calculated normalized read counts for each sample according to the procedure in Cowley et al.7. We then calculated pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients between replicate samples from the same cell line to identify and remove poor quality replicates using a threshold of 0.7. All sample read counts were then divided by their representation in the starting plasmid DNA library (pDNA) to compute a fold-change (FC). We computed robust Strictly Standardized Mean Difference (SSMD)23 statistics for the replicates using FCs between non-targeting control sgRNAs and FCs from sgRNAs targeting the spliceosomal, ribosomal, or proteasomal genes in KEGG genesets2426. We remove replicates with SSMDs that fail to reach −0.5. We also followed standard fingerprinting procedures to remove mismatched cell lines7. logFC data were then normalized within each cell line replicate by subtracting the median logFC value and dividing by the median average deviation (MAD) before input to CERES.

Copy number data

Copy number data for all cancer cell lines were obtained from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE)15 data portal (https://portals.broadinstitute.org/ccle). CN data were derived from Affymetrix SNP6.0 arrays. Segmentation of normalized log2 ratios was performed using the circular binary segmentation (CBS) algorithm. The dataset is available at (https://data.broadinstitute.org/ccle_legacy_data/dna_copy_number/CCLE_copynumber_2013-12-03.seg.txt).

Gene expression and mutation data

Gene expression and mutation data for all cell lines were obtained from CCLE data portal. These datasets are available at https://data.broadinstitute.org/ccle/CCLE_RNAseq_081117.rpkm.gct and https://data.broadinstitute.org/ccle/ccle2maf_081117.txt.

sgRNA genome mapping

sgRNA sequences are mapped to the hg19 reference genome using the bowtie short read aligner, version 1.1.227. Bowtie was run using the options “-a -v 0” in order to find all perfect matches in the genome. Only sgRNAs with fewer than 100 alignments were included and alignments were filtered to include an NGG protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM). Alignments were then mapped to gene coding sequences using the consensus coding sequence (CCDS) database.

Model fitting

To fit CERES to input data, we solve the following optimization problem:

minimizeD^i=1Mj=1N(Dij-D^ij)2+λgk=1Kj=1Ngkj2subjectoto0qi1,i=1,,Mfj(C)fj(C),CC0,j=1,,N

Where ij is computed according to Equation (1). The constants M, N, and K in the objective function are, respectively, the total number of sgRNAs, cell lines, and genes in the dataset. The right-hand term in the objective function acts as a regularizer on the cell-line specific deviation from the shared gene-knockout effect, where the hyperparameter λg modulates the strength of the regularization. The first constraint on the model parameters ensures that the guide activity scores are between 0 and 1. The second constraint guarantees that the copy-number effect functions are monotonically decreasing in their arguments. As the objective function is not jointly convex in the model parameters, we fit CERES using alternating least squares, first solving for the gene essentiality scores and copy-number effect parameters with the guide activity scores and offsets held constant, then solving for the guide activity scores and offsets as follows:

Algorithm 1.1.

CERES alternating minimization.

given ε > 0
initialize
1. gene-knockout and copy-number effect coefficients [g, f] := [0,0]
2. guide activity scores and offsets [q, o] := [1,0]
repeat
1. Solve for gene-knockout and copy-number effects. Compute optimal parameters [g*, f*]
2. Update. [g*, f*] := [g*, f*]
3. Solve for guide activity scores and offsets. Compute optimal parameters [q*, o*]
4. Update. [q*, o*] := [q*, o*]
5. Evaluate mean squared error (mse). mset := ||D||2/MN
6. Evaluate decrease in error. Δmse := msetmset−1
7. Stopping criterion. quit if Δmse < ε

Due to the presence of constraints, we use numerical optimization techniques to solve for the optimal parameters [g*, f*] and [q*, o*] in steps 1 and 328. Note that we use the bracket notation [g, f] to indicate that the enclosed parameters are inferred simultaneously as variables in a system of constrained linear equations.

Spline functions

The piecewise linear spline functions fj in the CERES model equations allow for flexible modeling of the characteristic saturation of the copy-number effect at high numbers of cuts. They are implemented with B-spline regression methods and are each parameterized by 25 slope coefficients plus a single intercept parameter. These are inferred directly in the regression that determines the gene-knockout effects. Each spline has an initial knot point at CN = 0. The additional knot points are determined by running average linkage clustering on the CN data for each cell line.

Hyperparameter optimization and test set evaluation

To improve the generalizability of our model and minimize overfitting of the training data, we regularized the cell line specific gene effects. To find the best value of λg, we evaluated the mean squared error (MSE) obtained on a randomly selected held-out validation set (one-tenth of all observations) for each of 25 values of λg sampled log-uniformly from the interval [0.01, 1]. After the 25 models were evaluated, the value of λg yielding the lowest MSE was used to fit the final model on the full set of observations (Supplementary Fig. 11). The optimized value of λg was 0.562, 0.681, and 0.681 for the Avana, GeCKOv2, and Wang2017 datasets, respectively.

Model complexity

Given a collection of CRISPR screening data, let N be the number of sgRNAs, M be the number of cell lines, and K be the number of targeted genes in the dataset. CERES fits KM cell line specific gene effect parameters and an additional K parameters for the shared gene effects. The model also fits M(S + 1) copy-number effect parameters, where S is the number of CN segments in each piecewise linear spline, and 2N parameters for the guide activity scores and offsets. Ignoring the degrees of freedom lost by regularization and constraints, CERES takes in MN data points and fits MN(1/N + S/N + 2/M + K/N + K/MN) parameters.

Software and implementation

Matrix operations for the optimization procedure were implemented using the open source C++ linear algebra library Eigen, version 3.3, available at http://eigen.tuxfamily.org. These operations were then wrapped into the R statistical software using the ‘RcppEigen’ package, downloaded from http://cran.r-project.org. The optimization routine and final fit for each dataset were run using Google Cloud Platform services.

Precision-recall analysis

Precision-recall curves were generated using the sets of common core essential and nonessential genes defined in Hart et al. 14. The best threshold for which greater than 95% of hits are essential genes is calculated for an FDR of 5%. The percentage of all essential genes that score as hits at this threshold is calculated as the recall at 5% FDR.

Comparison with linear regression

For each cell line, average guide scores were regressed against gene-level copy number data using a linear model. The fit residuals are taken as the LM-corrected gene dependency scores. Precision-recall analysis was performed as above.

Subsampling analysis

We simulated CERES performance generalization to other dataset sizes by downsampling from the Avana dataset. Specifically, for each number p in the set {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64} we ran 342p trials (up to rounding), such that each cell line appeared once in each run of size p. For each p and each cell line, we evaluated the harmonic mean of precision and recall (referred to as the F1-measure) at the point of equiprobability between the essential and nonessential gene classes. We then compared this number to the F1-measure obtained by running CERES on the full Avana dataset. For p < 5 we fixed all guide activity scores to a value of 1.

Differential dependency

Differential dependency is calculated as the difference between a single cell line’s dependency score for a given gene and the mean score for that gene across all lines screened, and then z-score normalized to that cell line’s entire set of differential dependencies to reduce the influence of noisy cell lines. For calculating the fraction of differential dependencies that are amplified or unexpressed, only genes with a negative dependency score in at least one cell line are considered.

Recurrent chromosome arm amplifications

We called recurrent chromosome arm amplifications for a lineage across the entire CCLE CN dataset. A chromosome arm was called as amplified if the weighted median of copy number segments on that arm was greater than 2.8. Recurrently amplified chromosome arms for a lineage were then defined using a one-tailed Fisher’s exact test to test for enrichment of amplified arms in that lineage, at an FDR-corrected p-value of 0.05.

Lineage-specific differential dependencies

For every lineage in our dataset with at least five cell lines, we calculate the difference in means in gene dependency between cell lines of that lineage and the rest of the dataset, and assess significance with a two-tailed student’s t-test (df=340), for each gene screened. Differential dependencies are called with a negative effect size at a significance of FDR-corrected p-value < 0.05. For each chromosome arm that was recurrently amplified for that lineage, we calculate the fraction of significant differential dependencies on that chromosome arm before and after CERES correction.

Supplementary Material

1

Supplementary Table 1. Sample information for the 342 cancer cell lines used in this study.

Supplementary Table 2. sgRNA barcode sequences included in the Avana library with genome and coding sequence mappings.

Supplementary Table 3. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 342 cancer cell lines screened with the Avana sgRNA library.

Supplementary Table 4. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 33 cancer cell lines screened with the GeCKOv2 sgRNA library published in Aguirre et al. (2016).

Supplementary Table 5. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 14 AML cell lines screened with the Wang2017 sgRNA library published in Wang et al. (2017).

Supplementary Table 6. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the Avana dataset.

Supplementary Table 7. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the GeCKOv2 dataset.

Supplementary Table 8. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the Wang2017 dataset.

2

Table 1.

Name Source Lineage Histology Gender Age Primary/Metastasis Achilles culture medium
143B_BONE CCLE Osteosarcoma osteosarcoma female 13 primary EMEM; 10% FBS; 0.015 mg/ml 5-bromo-2′-seoxyuridine
42MGBA_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA RPMI 1640 + EMEM (1:1): 80.0%
5637_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
59M_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma NA NA NA “DMEM; 10% FBS + 2 mM Glutamine, sodium pyruvate, ITS”
639V_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
647V_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA “DMEM; 15% FBS, 2mMGlutamax-1”
769P_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma female 63 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
786O_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male 58 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
8305C_THYROID CCLE Thyroid carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 85.0%
8MGBA_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA EMEM: 80.0%
A2058_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 43 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
A2780_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
A549_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 58 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
ABC1_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 47 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
AGS_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma female 54 primary F12K; 10% FBS
ASPC1_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma female 62 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
AU565_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 43 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
BC3C_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA M10
BFTC905_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM: 90.0%
BFTC909_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male 64 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
BHY_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
BICR22_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM Glutamine; 0.4ug/ml hydrocortisone
BICR6_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
BT549_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 72 primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 10 ug/ml insulin
C2BBE1_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 72 primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 0.01mg/ml transferrin; 2 mM glutamine
C32_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 53 primary EMEM; 10% FBS; 0.1mM NEAA
CAKI1_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male 49 metastasis McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
CAKI2_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male 69 primary McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
CAL27_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male 56 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
CAL29_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
CAL51_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 45 metastasis DMEM; 20% FBS
CAL78_BONE CCLE Chondrosarcoma chondrosarcoma NA NA NA “RPMI-1640, 20% FBS”
CALU6_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 61 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
CAMA1_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 51 metastasis EMEM; 10% FBS
CAOV3_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 54 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
CAS1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 63 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
CCFSTTG1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
CCK81_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA “EMEM, 10% FBS”
CFPAC1_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male 26 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
CHAGOK1_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 45 primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM glutamine
CHP212_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma NA NA NA EMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS
CJM_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA metastasis Hams F-12; 10% FBS
CL40_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA “DMEM/F-12 (1:1), 20% FBS”
COLO678_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
COLO679_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female 47 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
COLO792_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 62 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
COLO800_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 14 primary RPMI-1640; 10%FBS
CORL279_LUNG CCLE Lung (SCL) carcinoma male 63 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM glutamine
CORL47_LUNG CCLE Lung (SCL) carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
COV318_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary EMEM; 10% FBS
COV362_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine
COV434_OVARY CCLE Ovary sex_cord-stromal_tumour female NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine
COV504_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine
COV644_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine
D283MED_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Medulloblastoma primitive_neuroectodermal_tumour-medulloblastoma male NA NA “DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine, 2mM sodium pyruvate”
D341MED_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Medulloblastoma primitive_neuroectodermal_tumour-medulloblastoma male NA NA DMEM:F12 (1:1); 15% FBS
DANG_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
DAOY_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Medulloblastoma primitive_neuroectodermal_tumour-medulloblastoma NA NA NA EMEM: 90.0% 10%FBS
DETROIT562_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma female NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
DKMG_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma female 67 primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM glutamine
DLD1_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
DU4475_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 70 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
EFM19_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 50 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
EFO21_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 56 metastasis RPMI; 20% FBS; 0.1mM NEAA; 1mM Sodium Pyruvate
EFO27_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 36 metastasis RPMI; 20% FBS; 0.1mM NEAA; 1mM Sodium Pyruvate
EKVX_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
EPLC272H_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 57 primary RPMI; 20% FBS
ES2_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 47 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
ESS1_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female 76 primary RPMI; 20% FBS
F5_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Dunn Lab, Harvard” Meningioma meningioma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
FADU_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
FU97_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma female NA NA DMEM;10% FBS; Human Insulin: 0.01 mg/mL
G292CLONEA141B1_BONE CCLE Osteosarcoma osteosarcoma NA NA NA McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
G401_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Soft Tissue rhabdoid_tumour male 0.25 primary McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
GAMG_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA “DMEM, 10%FBS, 2mM Glutamax-1”
GB1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 35 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
GCIY_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma female NA primary MEM; 15% FBS
GI1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA DMEM: 90.0%
GSS_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
H4_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA DMEM: 90.0%
HARA_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 57 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1143_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 52 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1359_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 55 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1395_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 43 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1419_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
HCC1428_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 49 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC15_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 47 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1806_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 60 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1937_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 24 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC1954_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 61 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC202_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 82 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC56_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
HCC827_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 39 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HCC95_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 65 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HEC1A_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female 71 primary McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
HEC1B_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10%FBS
HEC251_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female NA primary EMEM; 0.15% FBS
HEC50B_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female NA primary EMEM; 15% FBS
HEC59_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female NA primary EMEM; 0.15% FBS
HEC6_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 15% FBS
HEYA8_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HGC27_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma NA NA NA Minimum Essential Media (MEM); 10% FBS; NEAA( Non-essential Amino Acids): 5.0 ml; L-glutamine: 2.0 mM
HLF_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 69 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
HMC18_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 10%FBS
HOP62_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
HS294T_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 56 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
HS578T_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 74 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
HS683_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 76 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
HS695T_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male NA NA EMEM: 10% FBS
HS729_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Soft Tissue rhabdomyosarcoma NA NA NA DMEM; 5% FBS
HS766T_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male 46 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
HS944T_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 51 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
HSC3_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male 64 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
HT1080_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Soft Tissue fibrosarcoma male 35 metastasis EMEM; 10% FBS
HT115_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 15% FBS; 2mM Glutamax-1
HT1197_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma male 44 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
HT1376_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
HT144_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male NA NA McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
HT55_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA primary EMEM; 20% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine; 0.1mM NEAA
HUH1_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 35 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
HUH6_LIVER CCLE Liver other NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
HUH7_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 57 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
HUPT3_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male 66 primary MEM; 10% FBS
IGR1_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 42 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
IGR39_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 26 primary DMEM; 15% FBS
IMR32_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
IPC298_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female 64 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
JHH1_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 50 primary William’s E Medium; 10% FBS
JHH4_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
JHH5_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 50 primary William’s E Medium: 90.0%
JHH7_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma NA NA NA William’s E medium with 10% FCS
JHOC5_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary DMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS; 0.1mM NEAA
JHOM1_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary DMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS; 0.1mM NEAA
JHOS2_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 45 primary DMEM/F12 (1:1);10 % FBS;
JHOS4_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 44 primary DMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS
JIMT1_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
JMSU1_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM Glutamax-1
K029AX_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
KALS1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma female NA primary RPMI; 5% FBS
KARPAS299_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Weinstock Lab, DFCI” T-cell Lymphoma (ALCL) lymphoid_neoplasm male NA NA “RPMI, 20% FBS, 2 mM L-glutamine”
KELLY_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
KIJK_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Weinstock Lab, DFCI” T-cell Lymphoma (ALCL) lymphoid_neoplasm male NA NA RPMI; 20% FBS
KLE_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA “DMEM/F-12 (1:1), 10%FBS”
KM12_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
KMBC2_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
KMRC1_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
KMRC20_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
KNS42_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA EMEM; 5% FBS
KNS60_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 55 primary DMEM; 0.05% FBS
KNS62_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 49 primary EMEM; 20% FBS
KNS81_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 65 primary DMEM; 5% FBS
KP2_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma female 65 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
KP3_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
KP4_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male 50 metastasis DMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS
KPL1_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 50 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
KPNYN_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
KS1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma NA NA NA MEM; 10% FBS; 2mMGlutamax-1
KU1919_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10%heat inactive FBS
KURAMOCHI_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
KYSE180_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
KYSE270_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI 1640:F12 (1:1): 90.0%
KYSE30_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma male 64 primary RPMI:F12 (1:1); 20% FBS
KYSE410_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
KYSE450_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma male 59 primary RPMI:HamsF-12(1:1) (RPMI-1640 (Hyclone Cat.# SH30027.02):Hams F-12 (Hyclone Cat.# SH30026.01)); 10% FBS
KYSE70_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma male 77 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
LCLC103H_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 61 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
LI7_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
LK2_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
LN18_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 65 primary DMEM; 5% FBS
LN235_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Lynda Chin, MD Anderson” Glioma glioma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
LN382_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Lynda Chin, MD Anderson” Glioma glioma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
LN443_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Mikael Rinne, DFCI” Glioma glioma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
LNZ308_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Lynda Chin, MD Anderson” Glioma glioma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
LOVO_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 56 metastasis F12K; 10% FBS
LS1034_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
LS180_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma female NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
LS513_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 63 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
LUDLU1_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 72 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
LXF289_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 63 primary Hams F-12; 10% FBS
M059K_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 33 primary DMEM/F12 (1:1); 10 % FBS
MALME3M_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 43 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
MCAS_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM:15%FBS
MDAMB157_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 44 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
MDAMB231_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 51 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
MDAMB415_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 38 metastasis L-15; 15% FBS; 2mM glutamine; 10mcg/mL Insulin; 10mcg/mL Glutathione
MDAMB435S_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
MDAMB436_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 43 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS; 16ug/ml glutathione
MDAMB453_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 48 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
MDAMB468_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 51 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
MDST8_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS; 2mM Glutamine
MELHO_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
MELJUSO_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
MFE319_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA 40% RPMI 1640 + 40% MEM (with Earle’s salts) + 20% h.i. FBS
MHHNB11_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
MIAPACA2_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male 65 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
MKN45_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma female 62 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
MOLM13_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm male 20 primary RPMI; 20% FBS
MORCPR_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
MV411_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm male 10 primary IMDM; 10% FBS
NB1_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
NB4_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm female 23 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1299_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 43 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1437_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 6 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1581_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 44 primary DMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS
NCIH1650_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 27 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1693_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 55 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1703_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 54 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1792_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 50 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH1944_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 62 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2023_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 26 metastasis “DMEM:HAM’s F12 (1:1); 5% FBS; .005 mg/ml insulin, .01 mg/ml transferrin, 30nM sodium selenite, 10 nM hydrocortisone, 10 nM beta estradiol, 10 mM HEPES, 2 mM L-glutamine”
NCIH2030_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2087_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 69 metastasis RPMI; 5% FBS
NCIH2110_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma NA NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2122_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female 46 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2126_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 65 metastasis “DMEM:HAM’s F12 (1:1); 5% FBS; .005 mg/ml insulin, .01 mg/ml transferrin, 30nM sodium selenite, 10 nM hydrocortisone, 10 nM beta estradiol, 10 mM HEPES, 2 mM L-glutamine”
NCIH2170_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2172_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH2291_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH23_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 51 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH322_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 52 primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM glutamine
NCIH441_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH460_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH520_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH716_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 33 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH747_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 69 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIH838_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 59 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NCIN87_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma male NA metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
NOMO1_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm female 31 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
NUGC3_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma male 72 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
OAW28_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
OE21_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
OE33_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus other female 73 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
ONS76_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Medulloblastoma primitive_neuroectodermal_tumour-medulloblastoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
OSRC2_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
OUMS23_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
OV7_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 78 primary DMEM:F12 (1:1); 5% FBS; 2mM L-glutamine; 0.5ug/ml hydrocortisone; 10ug/ml insulin
OV90_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 64 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS(Tony) [1:1 mixture of MCDB 105 medium with 1.5 g/L sodium bicarbonate added and Medium 199; 10% FBS]
OVCAR8_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 64 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
OVISE_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 40 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
OVK18_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma NA NA NA MEM10
OVMANA_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 51 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
OVTOKO_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 78 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
P31FUJ_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Ebert Lab, DFCI” AML haematopoietic_neoplasm male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
PANC0203_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS; 1mM sodium pyruvate
PANC0403_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 15% FBS; 20ug/ml human insulin
PANC1005_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male NA primary RPMI; 15% FBS; 2mM glutamine; 1.5 g/L Sodium bicarbonate; 4.5g/L glucose; 10mM HEPES; 1mM Sodium Pyruvate; 10 units/mL Insulin
PATU8988S_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA “DMEM:;10%FBS, 2mMGlutamax”
PC14_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
PECAPJ34CLONEC12_UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT CCLE Upper Aerodigestive carcinoma male 60 primary IMDM; 10% FBS; 2mM Glutamine
PF382_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Steigmaier Lab, DFCI” T-cell ALL lymphoid_neoplasm NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
PK1_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640:10%FBS
PK45H_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
PK59_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
PLCPRF5_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 24 primary DMEM; 10% FBS
PSN1_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 2mM glutamine
RCC10RGB_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
RD_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Soft Tissue rhabdomyosarcoma female 7 primary “DMEM:HAM’s F12 (1:1); 5% FBS; .005 mg/ml insulin, .01 mg/ml transferrin, 30nM sodium selenite, 10 nM hydrocortisone, 10 nM beta estradiol, 10 mM HEPES, 2 mM L-glutamine”
RERFLCAD1_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 70 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
RERFLCAI_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male NA primary EMEM; 10% FBS
RH30_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Soft Tissue rhabdomyosarcoma male 17 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
RKN_SOFT_TISSUE CCLE Ovary leiomyosarcoma female 45 primary Hams F-12; 10% FBS
RKO_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma NA NA primary MEM; 10% FBS
RMUGS_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 62 primary Hams F-12; 10% FBS
RPMI7951_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female 18 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
RT112_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma female NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
RT11284_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS;2mMGlutamax; 1%NEAA
RT4_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA M10
RVH421_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SCABER_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA “E10+ L-glutamine: 2.0 mM, NEAA( Non-essential Amino Acids): 0.1 mM, Sodium Pyruvate: 0.1 mM”
SF295_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma female 67 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SF767_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Lynda Chin, MD Anderson” Glioma glioma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
SH10TC_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SIMA_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SJSA1_BONE CCLE Osteosarcoma osteosarcoma male 19 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SKBR3_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female 43 metastasis McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
SKHEP1_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma male 52 metastasis EMEM; 10% FBS
SKMEL24_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 67 metastasis EMEM; 10% FBS
SKMEL30_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma male 67 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
SKMES1_LUNG CCLE Lung (NSCLC) carcinoma male 65 metastasis DMEM; 10% FBS
SKNAS_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS; NEAA
SKNBE2_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA EMEM:F12 (1:1); 10% FBS
SKNDZ_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS; NEAA
SKNFI_AUTONOMIC_GANGLIA CCLE Neuroblastoma neuroblastoma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS; NEAA
SKNMC_BONE CCLE Ewing Sarcoma Ewings_sarcoma-peripheral_primitive_neuroectodermal_tumour female NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
SKOV3_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 64 metastasis McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
SLR20_KIDNEY “Kaelin Lab, DFCI” Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SLR23_KIDNEY “Kaelin Lab, DFCI” Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI;10% FBS w/kanamycin
SLR26_KIDNEY “Kaelin Lab, DFCI” Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SNGM_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA Ham F-12: 80.0%
SNU1_STOMACH CCLE Stomach carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI-1640: 90.0%
SNU201_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 58 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU213_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male NA NA “RPMI; 10% FBS, 2mM L-glutamine”
SNU349_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma male 68 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU398_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU410_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU449_LIVER CCLE Liver carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU503_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU685_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU8_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 55 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SNU840_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 45 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SUIT2_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SUPM2_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Weinstock Lab, DFCI” T-cell Lymphoma (ALCL) lymphoid_neoplasm female NA NA RPMI; 20% FBS
SUPT1_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Steigmaier Lab, DFCI” T-cell ALL lymphoid_neoplasm male 8 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
SW1463_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
SW403_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma female 51 primary Leibovitz’s L-15; 10%FBS
SW48_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma female 82 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
SW620_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 51 metastasis L-15; 10% FBS
SW837_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male 53 primary RPMI; 10% FBS
T24_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA McCoy 5A: 90.0%
T3M4_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma NA NA NA Ham F-10: 90.0%;10%FBS
T84_LARGE_INTESTINE CCLE Colorectal carcinoma male NA NA DMEM:F12(1:1); 5% FBS; 2mM Glutamine
T98G_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male 61 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
TCCPAN2_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
TCCSUP_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma female 67 primary EMEM; 10% FBS; 1mM NEAA; 1mM Sodium Pyruvate
TE1_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
TE5_OESOPHAGUS CCLE Esophagus carcinoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
TEN_ENDOMETRIUM CCLE Endometrium carcinoma NA NA NA MEM;10%FBS
TF1_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm male NA NA RPMI-1640: 10%FBS; 2ng/ml GM-CSF
THP1_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE CCLE AML haematopoietic_neoplasm male 1 primary RPMI; 10% FBS; 50uM B-mercaptoethanol
TOV21G_OVARY CCLE Ovary carcinoma female 62 primary MCDB 105:Medium 199 (1:1); 15% FBS
TUHR10TKB_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
TUHR4TKB_KIDNEY CCLE Kidney carcinoma NA NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
U118MG_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
U178_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
U251MG_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma male NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
U2OS_BONE CCLE Osteosarcoma osteosarcoma female 15 primary McCoy’s 5A; 10% FBS
U343_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM “Lynda Chin, MD Anderson” Glioma glioma NA NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
U87MG_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma female 44 primary EMEM; 10% FBS
U937_HAEMATOPOIETIC_AND_LYMPHOID_TISSUE “Ebert Lab, DFCI” Lymphoma (DLBCL) lymphoid_neoplasm male 37 metastasis RPMI; 10% FBS
UACC257_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignt_melanoma NA NA primary RPMI; 10% FBS
UACC62_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
UMUC3_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
UOK101_KIDNEY “Kaelin Lab, DFCI” Kidney carcinoma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
VMCUB1_URINARY_TRACT CCLE Urinary Tract carcinoma NA NA NA DMEM; 10%FBS
WM115_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female NA NA EMEM; 10% FBS
WM1799_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
WM2664_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma female NA NA DMEM; 10% FBS
WM793_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
WM983B_SKIN CCLE Melanoma malignant_melanoma NA NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
YAPC_PANCREAS CCLE Pancreas carcinoma male NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS
YKG1_CENTRAL_NERVOUS_SYSTEM CCLE Glioma glioma female NA primary DMEM; 10% FBS
ZR751_BREAST CCLE Breast carcinoma female NA NA RPMI; 10% FBS

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by U01 CA176058, U01 CA199253, and P01 CA154303 grants (W.C.Hahn) and by the Slim Initiative for Genomic Medicine, a project funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation and the H.L. Snyder Foundation.

Footnotes

Code availability

We have made the CERES software and documentation available as an R package at https://depmap.org/ceres. We have deposited a code repository of scripts for regenerating analyses and figures here as well.

Data availability

We have made all CRISPR-Cas9 screening data presented here available at https://depmap.org/ceres. We also have posted these data and all other datasets used for analysis in a Figshare record, available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5319388.

Author contributions

R.M.M, J.G.B, and A.T. conceived of and designed the study. R.M.M., J.G.B., and J.M.M. performed computational analysis and interpretation of results. J.G.B. wrote and implemented the modeling software. R.M.M., B.A.W., and A.E.S. processed and managed data. H.X., and N.V.D. assisted with computational analysis. P.G.M. provided computational tools. G.S.C., S.P., and F.V. provided project management. A.G., Y.L., L.D.A., G.J., R.L., W.F.H., M.S., T.W., D.C.H., V.A.Z., M.R.W., Z.K., J.J.C., and M.O. assisted with data generation. R.M.M., J.G.B., J.M.M, W.C.H., and A.T. wrote and/or revised the manuscript with assistance from other authors. K.S., T.R.G., J.S.B., F.V., D.E.R., W.C.H., and A.T. supervised the study and performed an advisory role.

Competing financial interests

W.C. Hahn reports receiving a commercial research grant from Novartis and is a consultant/advisory board member for the same as well as for KSQ Therapeutics. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

References

  • 1.Wang T, et al. Identification and characterization of essential genes in the human genome. Science. 2015;350:1096–1101. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hart T, et al. High-Resolution CRISPR Screens Reveal Fitness Genes and Genotype-Specific Cancer Liabilities. Cell. 2015;163:1515–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aguirre AJ, et al. Genomic Copy Number Dictates a Gene-Independent Cell Response to CRISPR/Cas9 Targeting. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:914–929. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Munoz DM, et al. CRISPR Screens Provide a Comprehensive Assessment of Cancer Vulnerabilities but Generate False-Positive Hits for Highly Amplified Genomic Regions. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:900–913. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cheung HW, et al. Systematic investigation of genetic vulnerabilities across cancer cell lines reveals lineage-specific dependencies in ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:12372–12377. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109363108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Marcotte R, et al. Essential gene profiles in breast, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:172–189. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cowley GS, et al. Parallel genome-scale loss of function screens in 216 cancer cell lines for the identification of context-specific genetic dependencies. Scientific Data. 2014;1:140035. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2014.35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tzelepis K, et al. A CRISPR Dropout Screen Identifies Genetic Vulnerabilities and Therapeutic Targets in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Cell Reports. 2016;17:1193–1205. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang T, et al. Gene Essentiality Profiling Reveals Gene Networks and Synthetic Lethal Interactions with Oncogenic Ras. Cell. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tsherniak A, et al. Defining a Cancer Dependency Map. Cell. 2017;170:564–570.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fellmann C, Gowen BG, Lin P-C, Doudna JA, Corn JE. Cornerstones of CRISPR-Cas in drug discovery and therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016 doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Corsello SM, et al. The Drug Repurposing Hub: a next-generation drug library and information resource. Nature Medicine. 2017;23:405–408. doi: 10.1038/nm.4306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Doench JG, et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:184–191. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hart T, Brown KR, Sircoulomb F, Rottapel R, Moffat J. Measuring error rates in genomic perturbation screens: gold standards for human functional genomics. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10:733–733. doi: 10.15252/msb.20145216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Barretina J, et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature. 2012;483:603–607. doi: 10.1038/nature11003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Li W, et al. MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol. 2014;15:554. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0554-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hart T, Moffat J. BAGEL: a computational framework for identifying essential genes from pooled library screens. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17:164. doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1015-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Doench JG, et al. Rational design of highly active sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene inactivation. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:1262–1267. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xu H, et al. Sequence determinants of improved CRISPR sgRNA design. Genome Res. 2015;25:1147–1157. doi: 10.1101/gr.191452.115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tsherniak A, Vazquez F, Golub TR, Boehm JS, Hahn WC. Defining a Cancer Dependency Map. Cell. 2017:1–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xiang X, et al. Grhl2 Determines the Epithelial Phenotype of Breast Cancers and Promotes Tumor Progression. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e50781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Werner S, et al. Dual roles of the transcription factor grainyhead-like 2 (GRHL2) in breast cancer. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:22993–23008. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.456293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang XD. A pair of new statistical parameters for quality control in RNA interference high-throughput screening assays. Genomics. 2007;89:552–561. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:27–30. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.1.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D457–62. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D353–D361. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R25. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boyd S, Vandenberghe L. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 1–730. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1

Supplementary Table 1. Sample information for the 342 cancer cell lines used in this study.

Supplementary Table 2. sgRNA barcode sequences included in the Avana library with genome and coding sequence mappings.

Supplementary Table 3. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 342 cancer cell lines screened with the Avana sgRNA library.

Supplementary Table 4. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 33 cancer cell lines screened with the GeCKOv2 sgRNA library published in Aguirre et al. (2016).

Supplementary Table 5. CERES-estimated gene-knockout effects for 14 AML cell lines screened with the Wang2017 sgRNA library published in Wang et al. (2017).

Supplementary Table 6. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the Avana dataset.

Supplementary Table 7. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the GeCKOv2 dataset.

Supplementary Table 8. CERES-estimated guide activity scores for sgRNAs in the Wang2017 dataset.

2

RESOURCES