Minimizing the risk of reporting false positives in large-scale RNAi screens
- 1 October 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Nature Methods
- Vol. 3 (10) , 777-779
- https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1006-777
Abstract
Large-scale RNA interference (RNAi)-based analyses, very much as other 'omic' approaches, have inherent rates of false positives and negatives. The variability in the standards of care applied to validate results from these studies, if left unchecked, could eventually begin to undermine the credibility of RNAi as a powerful functional approach. This Commentary is an invitation to an open discussion started among various users of RNAi to set forth accepted standards that would insure the quality and accuracy of information in the large datasets coming out of genome-scale screens. Please visit methagora to view and post comments on this articleKeywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evidence of off-target effects associated with long dsRNAs in Drosophila melanogaster cell-based assaysNature Methods, 2006
- Prevalence of off-target effects in Drosophila RNA interference screensNature, 2006
- Enhancing and confirming the specificity of RNAi experimentsNature Methods, 2006
- High-throughput RNAi screening in cultured cells: a user's guideNature Reviews Genetics, 2006
- 3′ UTR seed matches, but not overall identity, are associated with RNAi off-targetsNature Methods, 2006
- Expression profiling reveals off-target gene regulation by RNAiNature Biotechnology, 2003
- siRNAs can function as miRNAsGenes & Development, 2003