Skip to main content
メニュー
Revvity logo
Contact us
JP
Revvity Sites Globally

Select your location.

*e-commerce not available for this region.

australia.webp Australia
austria.webp Austria
belgium.webp Belgium
brazil.webp Brazil *
canada.webp Canada
china.webp China *
denmark.webp Denmark
finland.webp Finland
france.webp France
germany.webp Germany
hong-kong.webp Hong Kong (China) *
india.webp India *
ireland.webp Ireland
italy.webp Italy
japan.webp Japan *
luxembourg.webp Luxembourg
mexico.webp Mexico *
netherlands.webp Netherlands
norway.webp Norway
philippines.webp Philippines *
republic of korea.webp Republic of Korea *
singapore.webp Singapore *
spain.webp Spain
sweden.webp Sweden
switzerland.webp Switzerland
thailand.webp Thailand *
uk.webp United Kingdom
usa.webp United States
Breadcrumb
...
  • ホーム
  • Blog
  • Functional Genomic Screening
  • Mastering screening: Validating and following up on hits from loss-of-function screens.
Validating and Following Up on Hits from Loss-of-Function Screens

Blog

Functional Genomic Screening Preclinical Oncology Services

Feb 20th 2025

2 min read

Mastering screening: Validating and following up on hits from loss-of-function screens.

Help us improve your Revvity blog experience!

Feedback

The advent of genomic screening with CRISPR-Cas9 has sparked a revolution in our understanding of biological processes, cellular behavior, drug interactions, and development. Whether using pooled, highly multiplexed lentiviral sgRNAs or arrayed synthetic sgRNAs, the essence of screening is to ask specific questions with tens of thousands of gene-specific reagents to pinpoint which genes are involved in a process. The most common method is CRISPR knockout (CRISPRko) screens, with CRISPR activation (CRISPRa) and CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) also gaining traction1,2.

Running a screen can be logistically challenging, but the real work begins afterward: validating which hits are genuine and informative.

Here we describe some of the most used strategies for hit validation.

Deconvolution

Deconvolution is about breaking down something complex into its basic parts. In a primary screen, multiple reagents targeting the same gene are often used together. To confirm a hit, you can test each reagent individually in a secondary screen. For instance, mixing four to six sgRNAs targeting the same gene into one well can be cost-effective. If this mix shows a hit, you can evaluate the quality by seeing how well each individual reagent replicates the result. This process of deconvolution, or separating the effects of each individual reagent, allows for a more accurate validation of hits.

Orthogonal reagents

Using orthogonal reagents—those that affect the same gene but through different mechanisms—is a common way to validate hits. For instance, in CRISPRko screens, RNAi reagents could verify if a phenotype caused by DNA-level editing can also be seen with mRNA-level silencing of the same gene. This approach provides a robust validation of hits by confirming the observed phenotype through multiple independent methods3. If you are interested in reagents for orthogonal validation browse our Dharmacon™ reagents including RNAi, CRISPR, and gene expression solutions.

Knockout cell lines

CRISPR-Cas9 has made creating knockout cell lines faster and cheaper compared to older technologies like ZFNs and TALENs4. Now, knockout cell lines are readily available as catalog items, saving time and effort. Using a characterized isogenic line allows for more complex experiments (like paired knockouts or synthetic lethality) and provides a stable background for screens. A haploid line ensures complete knockout of a gene, creating a clean model. As a validation tool, a knockout cell line can be used for rescue experiments by reintroducing the gene’s function with a cDNA or ORF. It also enables matrixed knockouts to study gene modulation in the context of a gene’s knockout.

Looking for a partner to work with on hit validation to free up in-house resources? Find out how our preclinical services team can help.

Learn more

References

  1. Ai, Y.H. 2023. A Comparative Analysis of CRISPR Screening Technologies. Open J Genet
  2. Smith et.al 2017. Evaluation of RNAi and CRISPR technologies by large-scale gene expression profiling in the Connectivity Map. PLOS Biol
  3. Ziemba B. 2023 Orthogonal Validation: A Means to Strengthen Gene Editing and Gene Modulation Research. Technology Networks.
  4. Sentmanat et.al. 2018. A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing. Sci Reports.

For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.

Help us improve your Revvity blog experience!

Feedback

Share this post:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

続き Functional Genomic Screening posts

Building on Ambros and Ruvkun's Nobel-Winning studies with Revvity’s microRNA toolkit.
Read
Exploring the importance of sequencing guide RNAs in Functional Genomics.
Read
Why using orthogonal loss-of function approaches can strengthen your genetic research.
Read
line

Questions?
We’re here to help.

Contact us
Revvity Logo

©2025 Revvity - All rights reserved

Revvity is a trademark of Revvity, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.