4.7 Article

Pooled In Vitro and In Vivo CRISPR-Cas9 Screening Identifies Tumor Suppressors in Human Colon Organoids

期刊

CELL STEM CELL
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 782-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2020.04.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Cancer Aid [70112869]
  2. LOEWE Center Frankfurt Cancer Institute (FCI) - Hessen State Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts [III L 5-519/03/03.001-(0015)]
  3. German Jose Carreras Leukemia Foundation [DJCLS 04FN/2018]
  4. Clinician Scientist program Interfaces and Interventions in Complex Chronic Conditions'' by the German Research Foundation (DFG)
  5. ERC-starting grant [639795]
  6. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Joint Funding (CHOICE consortium)
  7. DFG [SPP 2084]
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [639795] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is characterized by prominent genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity between patients. To facilitate high-throughput genetic testing and functional identification of tumor drivers, we developed a platform for pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screening in human colon organoids. Using transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) resistance as a paradigm to establish sensitivity and scalability in vitro, we identified optimal conditions and strict guide RNA (gRNA) requirements for screening in 3D organoids. We then screened a pancancer tumor suppressor gene (TSG) library in pre-malignant organoids with APC(-/-);KRAS(G12D) mutations, which were xenografted to study clonal advantages in context of a complex tumor microenvironment. We identified TGFBR2 as the most prevalent TSG, followed by known and previously uncharacterized mediators of CRC growth. gRNAs were validated in a secondary screen using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to adjust for clonal drift and to distinguish clone size and abundance. Together, these findings highlight a powerful organoid-based platform for pooled CRISPR-Cas9 screening for patient-specific functional genomics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据