Minimizing the risk of reporting false positives in large-scale RNAi screens.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

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.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Echeverri, CJ; Beachy, PA; Baum, B; Boutros, M; Buchholz, F; Chanda, SK; Downward, J; Ellenberg, J; Fraser, AG; Hacohen, N; Hahn, WC; Jackson, AL; Kiger, A; Linsley, PS; Lum, L; Ma, Y; Mathey-Prévôt, B; Root, DE; Sabatini, DM; Taipale, J; Perrimon, N; Bernards, R

Published Date

  • October 2006

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 3 / 10

Start / End Page

  • 777 - 779

PubMed ID

  • 16990807

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1548-7091

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1038/nmeth1006-777


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States