Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

CRISPR screens for functional interrogation of immunity

Nature Reviews Immunology volume 23, pages 363–380 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

CRISPR-based technologies represent a major breakthrough in biomedical science as they offer a powerful platform for unbiased screening and functional genomics in various fields, including immunology. Pooled and arrayed CRISPR screens have uncovered previously unknown intracellular drivers in innate and adaptive immune cells for immune regulation as well as intercellular regulators mediating cell–cell interactions. Recent single-cell CRISPR screening platforms expand the readouts to the transcriptome and enable the inference of gene regulatory networks for better mechanistic insights. CRISPR screens also allow for mapping of genetic interactions to identify genes that synergize or alleviate complex immune phenotypes. Here, we review the progress in and emerging adaptation of CRISPR technologies to advance our fundamental immunological knowledge and identify novel disease targets for immunotherapy of infection, inflammation and cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: In vitro CRISPR screens for immune cell activation and function.
Fig. 2: In vivo CRISPR screens in immune cells and tumour cells for regulators of the immune response.
Fig. 3: Integration of gene regulatory network analysis with CRISPR screens.
Fig. 4: CRISPR-based genetic interaction screens in immune regulation.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cho, S. W., Kim, S., Kim, J. M. & Kim, J. S. Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 230–232 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jinek, M. et al. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife 2, e00471 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mali, P. et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bock, C. et al. High-content CRISPR screening. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2, 8 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Klompe, S. E., Vo, P. L. H., Halpin-Healy, T. S. & Sternberg, S. H. Transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature 571, 219–225 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schumann, K. et al. Functional CRISPR dissection of gene networks controlling human regulatory T cell identity. Nat. Immunol. 21, 1456–1466 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chow, R. D. et al. AAV-mediated direct in vivo CRISPR screen identifies functional suppressors in glioblastoma. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1329–1341 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ye, L. et al. In vivo CRISPR screening in CD8 T cells with AAV-Sleeping Beauty hybrid vectors identifies membrane targets for improving immunotherapy for glioblastoma. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1302–1313 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shifrut, E. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens in primary human T cells reveal key regulators of immune function. Cell 175, 1958–1971 (2018). This study has developed the SLICE approach for CRISPR–Cas9 delivery (sgRNA-encoding lentiviral infection followed by Cas9 protein electroporation) and describes its use for a genome-wide pooled CRISPR screen in primary human T cells.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Doench, J. G. Am I ready for CRISPR? A user’s guide to genetic screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 67–80 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Joung, J. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout and transcriptional activation screening. Nat. Protoc. 12, 828–863 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Platt, R. J. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 159, 440–455 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chu, V. T. et al. Efficient generation of Rosa26 knock-in mice using CRISPR/Cas9 in C57BL/6 zygotes. BMC Biotechnol. 16, 4 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Parnas, O. et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR screen in primary immune cells to dissect regulatory networks. Cell 162, 675–686 (2015). This study is the first to report a genome-wide pooled CRISPR screen in primary immune cells, namely bone marrow-derived DCs stimulated with LPS.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pulendran, B. & Davis, M. M. The science and medicine of human immunology. Science 369, essay4014 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jost, M. et al. CRISPR-based functional genomics in human dendritic cells. eLife 10, e65856 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yeung, A. T. Y. et al. A genome-wide knockout screen in human macrophages identified host factors modulating Salmonella infection. mBio 10, e02169–19 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lai, Y. et al. High-throughput CRISPR screens to dissect Macrophage-Shigella interactions. mBio 12, e0215821 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sedlyarov, V. et al. The bicarbonate transporter SLC4A7 plays a key role in macrophage phagosome acidification. Cell Host Microbe 23, 766–774.e5 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Haney, M. S. et al. Identification of phagocytosis regulators using magnetic genome-wide CRISPR screens. Nat. Genet. 50, 1716–1727 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shi, J. et al. A genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies WDFY3 as a novel regulator of macrophage efferocytosis. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.21.477299 (2022).

  23. Swanson, K. V., Deng, M. & Ting, J. P. The NLRP3 inflammasome: molecular activation and regulation to therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 19, 477–489 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Locati, M., Curtale, G. & Mantovani, A. Diversity, mechanisms, and significance of macrophage plasticity. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 15, 123–147 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmid-Burgk, J. L. et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) screen identifies NEK7 as an essential component of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 103–109 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tong, J. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening identifies m(6)A as a positive regulator of macrophage activation. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd4742 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Covarrubias, S. et al. High-throughput CRISPR screening identifies genes involved in macrophage viability and inflammatory pathways. Cell Rep. 33, 108541 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Harding, C. V. & Boom, W. H. Regulation of antigen presentation by Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a role for toll-like receptors. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 296–307 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kiritsy, M. C. et al. A genetic screen in macrophages identifies new regulators of IFNγ-inducible MHCII that contribute to T cell activation. eLife 10, e65110 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiang, C. et al. CRISPR/Cas9 screens reveal multiple layers of B cell CD40 regulation. Cell Rep. 28, 1307–1322 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chu, V. T. et al. Efficient CRISPR-mediated mutagenesis in primary immune cells using CrispRGold and a C57BL/6 Cas9 transgenic mouse line. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12514–12519 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Carnevale, J. et al. RASA2 ablation in T cells boosts antigen sensitivity and long-term function. Nature 609, 174–182 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shang, W. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies FAM49B as a key regulator of actin dynamics and T cell activation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E4051–E4060 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Johansen, K. H. et al. A CRISPR screen targeting PI3K effectors identifies RASA3 as a negative regulator of LFA-1-mediated adhesion in T cells. Sci. Signal. 15, eabl9169 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberg, S. A. & Restifo, N. P. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 348, 62–68 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gurusamy, D. et al. Multi-phenotype CRISPR-Cas9 screen identifies p38 kinase as a target for adoptive immunotherapies. Cancer Cell 37, 818–833 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dong, M. B. et al. Systematic immunotherapy target discovery using genome-scale in vivo CRISPR screens in CD8 T cells. Cell 178, 1189–1204 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ye, L. et al. A genome-scale gain-of-function CRISPR screen in CD8 T cells identifies proline metabolism as a means to enhance CAR-T therapy. Cell Metab. 34, 595–614 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Chapman, N. M., Boothby, M. R. & Chi, H. Metabolic coordination of T cell quiescence and activation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 55–70 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Long, L. et al. CRISPR screens unveil signal hubs for nutrient licensing of T cell immunity. Nature 600, 308–313 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Saravia, J., Chapman, N. M. & Chi, H. Helper T cell differentiation. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 16, 634–643 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Chapman, N. M. & Chi, H. Metabolic adaptation of lymphocytes in immunity and disease. Immunity 55, 14–30 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Henriksson, J. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens in T helper cells reveal pervasive crosstalk between activation and differentiation. Cell 176, 882–896 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Cortez, J. T. et al. CRISPR screen in regulatory T cells reveals modulators of Foxp3. Nature 582, 416–420 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Loo, C. S. et al. A Genome-wide CRISPR screen reveals a role for the non-canonical nucleosome-remodeling BAF complex in Foxp3 expression and regulatory T cell function. Immunity 53, 143–157 (2020). Long et al.40, Henriksson et al.43 and Loo et al.45 conducted genome-wide CRISPR screens in primary mouse T cells in vitro to explore new regulators of mTORC1 signalling, TH2 cell differentiation programmes and FOXP3 expression, respectively.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Legut, M. et al. A genome-scale screen for synthetic drivers of T cell proliferation. Nature 603, 728–735 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Schmidt, R. et al. CRISPR activation and interference screens decode stimulation responses in primary human T cells. Science 375, eabj4008 (2022). This study conducted comprehensive bulk and single-cell CRISPR screens in primary human T cells for regulators of cytokine production.

  48. Theisen, D. J. et al. WDFY4 is required for cross-presentation in response to viral and tumor antigens. Science 362, 694–699 (2018). This study reports an intercellular CRISPR screening platform through a DC–T cell co-culture that enables identification of novel regulators of antigen cross-presentation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Scott, A. M., Wolchok, J. D. & Old, L. J. Antibody therapy of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 278–287 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kamber, R. A. et al. Inter-cellular CRISPR screens reveal regulators of cancer cell phagocytosis. Nature 597, 549–554 (2021). This study reports an intercellular CRISPR screening platform that facilitates identification of ligand–receptor pairs between tumour cells and macrophages that mediate phagocytosis of tumour cells.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Li, R. et al. Generation and validation of versatile inducible CRISPRi embryonic stem cell and mouse model. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000749 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Deng, Y. et al. Generation of a CRISPR activation mouse that enables modelling of aggressive lymphoma and interrogation of venetoclax resistance. Nat. Commun. 13, 4739 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhou, H. et al. In vivo simultaneous transcriptional activation of multiple genes in the brain using CRISPR-dCas9-activator transgenic mice. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 440–446 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wangensteen, K. J. et al. Combinatorial genetics in liver repopulation and carcinogenesis with a in vivo CRISPR activation platform. Hepatology 68, 663–676 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Li, K. et al. Interrogation of enhancer function by enhancer-targeting CRISPR epigenetic editing. Nat. Commun. 11, 485 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fu, G. et al. Metabolic control of TFH cells and humoral immunity by phosphatidylethanolamine. Nature 595, 724–729 (2021). This study conducted in vivo metabolic CRISPR screening in primary mouse CD4+ T cells for specific regulators of TFH cell versus TH1 cell differentiation.

  57. Huang, B. et al. In vivo CRISPR screens reveal a HIF-1α-mTOR-network regulates T follicular helper versus Th1 cells. Nat. Commun. 13, 805 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Sugiura, A. et al. MTHFD2 is a metabolic checkpoint controlling effector and regulatory T cell fate and function. Immunity 55, 65–81 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sutra Del Galy, A. et al. In vivo genome-wide CRISPR screens identify SOCS1 as intrinsic checkpoint of CD4+ TH1 cell response. Sci. Immunol. 6, eabe8219 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Crompton, J. G., Sukumar, M. & Restifo, N. P. Uncoupling T-cell expansion from effector differentiation in cell-based immunotherapy. Immunol. Rev. 257, 264–276 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Huang, H. et al. In vivo CRISPR screening reveals nutrient signaling processes underpinning CD8+ T cell fate decisions. Cell 184, 1245–1261 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Chen, Z. et al. In vivo CD8+ T cell CRISPR screening reveals control by Fli1 in infection and cancer. Cell 184, 1262–1280 (2021). Huang et al.61 and Chen et al.62 conducted in vivo CRISPR screens in primary CD8+ T cells to explore new pathways affecting their clonal expansion and differentiation, with the goals of engineering more efficacious T cell responses against infections and tumours.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ellis, G. I., Sheppard, N. C. & Riley, J. L. Genetic engineering of T cells for immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 22, 427–447 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Wei, J. et al. Targeting REGNASE-1 programs long-lived effector T cells for cancer therapy. Nature 576, 471–476 (2019). Dong et al.37 and Wei et al.64 conducted in vivo CRISPR screens in primary CD8+ T cells to identify targets in T cells that can be reprogrammed to promote the antitumour response.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhao, H. et al. Genome-wide fitness gene identification reveals Roquin as a potent suppressor of CD8 T cell expansion and anti-tumor immunity. Cell Rep. 37, 110083 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kumar, S. et al. CARM1 inhibition enables immunotherapy of resistant tumors by dual action on tumor cells and T cells. Cancer Discov. 11, 2050–2071 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang, D. et al. CRISPR screening of CAR T cells and cancer stem cells reveals critical dependencies for cell-based therapies. Cancer Discov. 11, 1192–1211 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. LaFleur, M. W. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 delivery system for in vivo screening of genes in the immune system. Nat. Commun. 10, 1668 (2019). This study developed a novel tool for in vivo CRISPR screening (CHIME) using bone marrow cells from Cas9-expressing mice to identify regulators of immune cell homeostasis.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Liu, B. et al. Large-scale multiplexed mosaic CRISPR perturbation in the whole organism. Cell 185, 3008–3024 (2022). This study developed an inducible mosaic animal for perturbation, which enables in situ CRISPR targeting of at least 100 genes in parallel throughout the mouse body, and showed mapping of a miniature Perturb-Atlas by phenotyping across perturbations in multiple tissues.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kalbasi, A. & Ribas, A. Tumour-intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 25–39 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Shah, N. N. & Fry, T. J. Mechanisms of resistance to CAR T cell therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 16, 372–385 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Burr, M. L. et al. An evolutionarily conserved function of polycomb silences the MHC class I antigen presentation pathway and enables immune evasion in cancer. Cancer Cell 36, 385–401 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Burr, M. L. et al. CMTM6 maintains the expression of PD-L1 and regulates anti-tumour immunity. Nature 549, 101–105 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Gu, S. S. et al. Therapeutically increasing MHC-I expression potentiates immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Discov. 11, 1524–1541 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Barkal, A. A. et al. CD24 signalling through macrophage Siglec-10 is a target for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 572, 392–396 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Wang, J. et al. Siglec-15 as an immune suppressor and potential target for normalization cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Med. 25, 656–666 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Wisnovsky, S. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens reveal a specific ligand for the glycan-binding immune checkpoint receptor Siglec-7. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015024118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Patel, S. J. et al. Identification of essential genes for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 548, 537–542 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Pan, D. et al. A major chromatin regulator determines resistance of tumor cells to T cell-mediated killing. Science 359, 770–775 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Vredevoogd, D. W. et al. Augmenting immunotherapy impact by lowering tumor TNF cytotoxicity threshold. Cell 178, 585–599 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Han, P. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screening identifies JAK1 deficiency as a mechanism of T-cell resistance. Front. Immunol. 10, 251 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Young, T. M. et al. Autophagy protects tumors from T cell-mediated cytotoxicity via inhibition of TNFα-induced apoptosis. Sci. Immunol. 5, eabb9561 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Singh, N. et al. Impaired death receptor signaling in leukemia causes antigen-independent resistance by inducing CAR T-cell dysfunction. Cancer Discov. 10, 552–567 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Dufva, O. et al. Integrated drug profiling and CRISPR screening identify essential pathways for CAR T-cell cytotoxicity. Blood 135, 597–609 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Hou, J. et al. Integrating genome-wide CRISPR immune screen with multi-omic clinical data reveals distinct classes of tumor intrinsic immune regulators. J. Immunother. Cancer 9, e001819 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Upadhyay, R. et al. A critical role for fas-mediated off-target tumor killing in T-cell immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 11, 599–613 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Shen, Y. et al. Cancer cell-intrinsic resistance to BiTE therapy is mediated by loss of CD58 costimulation and modulation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway. J. Immunother. Cancer 10, e004348 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Lawson, K. A. et al. Functional genomic landscape of cancer-intrinsic evasion of killing by T cells. Nature 586, 120–126 (2020). This study conducted genome-wide CRISPR screens across six genetically diverse mouse cancer cell lines co-cultured with CD8+ CTLs and identified 182 core cancer-intrinsic, CTL-evasion genes.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Zhuang, X., Veltri, D. P. & Long, E. O. Genome-wide CRISPR screen reveals cancer cell resistance to NK cells induced by NK-derived IFN-γ. Front. Immunol. 10, 2879 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Larson, R. C. et al. CAR T cell killing requires the IFNγR pathway in solid but not liquid tumours. Nature 604, 563–570 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Manguso, R. T. et al. In vivo CRISPR screening identifies Ptpn2 as a cancer immunotherapy target. Nature 547, 413–418 (2017). This study is the first to report in vivo CRISPR screening in tumour cells under immune pressure to identify new targets to improve the response to immunotherapy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Griffin, G. K. et al. Epigenetic silencing by SETDB1 suppresses tumour intrinsic immunogenicity. Nature 595, 309–314 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Li, F. et al. In vivo epigenetic CRISPR screen identifies Asf1a as an immunotherapeutic target in Kras-mutant lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 10, 270–287 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Ishizuka, J. J. et al. Loss of ADAR1 in tumours overcomes resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nature 565, 43–48 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhu, X. G. et al. Functional genomics in vivo reveal metabolic dependencies of pancreatic cancer cells. Cell Metab. 33, 211–221 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Martin, T. D. et al. The adaptive immune system is a major driver of selection for tumor suppressor gene inactivation. Science 373, 1327–1335 (2021). This study conducted in vivo CRISPR screening in multiple tissue-derived tumour cell lines with or without adaptive immune pressure, showing that cancer is largely driven by tumour immune evasion.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Wang, X. et al. In vivo CRISPR screens identify the E3 ligase Cop1 as a modulator of macrophage infiltration and cancer immunotherapy target. Cell 184, 5357–5374 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Dubrot, J. et al. In vivo CRISPR screens reveal the landscape of immune evasion pathways across cancer. Nat. Immunol. 23, 1495–1506 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Ramos, A. et al. Leukemia-intrinsic determinants of CAR-T response revealed by in vivo genome-wide CRISPR screening. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.15.480217 (2022).

  100. Li, J. et al. Epigenetic and transcriptional control of the epidermal growth factor receptor regulates the tumor immune microenvironment in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Discov. 11, 736–753 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Wagner, D. L. et al. High prevalence of Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9-reactive T cells within the adult human population. Nat. Med. 25, 242–248 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Chew, W. L. et al. A multifunctional AAV-CRISPR-Cas9 and its host response. Nat. Methods 13, 868–874 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Dubrot, J. et al. In vivo screens using a selective CRISPR antigen removal lentiviral vector system reveal immune dependencies in renal cell carcinoma. Immunity 54, 571–585 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Chen, R. et al. In vivo RNA interference screens identify regulators of antiviral CD4+ and CD8+ T cell differentiation. Immunity 41, 325–338 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Stripecke, R. et al. Immune response to green fluorescent protein: implications for gene therapy. Gene Ther. 6, 1305–1312 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Wang, G. et al. CRISPR-GEMM pooled mutagenic screening identifies KMT2D as a major modulator of immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Discov. 10, 1912–1933 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Yim, S., Hwang, W., Han, N. & Lee, D. Computational discovery of cancer immunotherapy targets by intercellular CRISPR screens. Front. Immunol. 13, 884561 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Dixit, A. et al. Perturb-Seq: dissecting molecular circuits with scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled genetic screens. Cell 167, 1853–1866 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Jaitin, D. A. et al. Dissecting immune circuits by linking CRISPR-pooled screens with single-cell RNA-seq. Cell 167, 1883–1896 (2016). Dixit et al.108 and Jaitin et al.109 are among the first studies to report a single-cell CRISPR screen in primary immune cells.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Drager, N. M. et al. A CRISPRi/a platform in human iPSC-derived microglia uncovers regulators of disease states. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 1149–1162 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Zhou, W., Gao, F., Romero-Wolf, M., Jo, S. & Rothenberg, E. V. Single-cell deletion analyses show control of pro-T cell developmental speed and pathways by Tcf7, Spi1, Gata3, Bcl11a, Erg, and Bcl11b. Sci. Immunol. 7, eabm1920 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Wagner, D. E. & Klein, A. M. Lineage tracing meets single-cell omics: opportunities and challenges. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 410–427 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Havel, J. J., Chowell, D. & Chan, T. A. The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 19, 133–150 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Costanzo, M. et al. Global genetic networks and the genotype-to-phenotype relationship. Cell 177, 85–100 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Perez-Perez, J. M., Candela, H. & Micol, J. L. Understanding synergy in genetic interactions. Trends Genet. 25, 368–376 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Guo, A. et al. cBAF complex components and MYC cooperate early in CD8+ T cell fate. Nature 607, 135–141 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Belk, J. A. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens of T cell exhaustion identify chromatin remodeling factors that limit T cell persistence. Cancer Cell 40, 768–786 (2022). Guo et al.116 and Belk et al.117 conducted in vivo CRISPR screens in primary CD8+ T cells to elucidate the inhibitory role of the SWI/SNF complex in T cell persistence in infection and tumours.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Wang, T. et al. Gene essentiality profiling reveals gene networks and synthetic lethal interactions with oncogenic Ras. Cell 168, 890–903 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Bayraktar, E. C. et al. Metabolic coessentiality mapping identifies C12orf49 as a regulator of SREBP processing and cholesterol metabolism. Nat. Metab. 2, 487–498 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Aregger, M. et al. Systematic mapping of genetic interactions for de novo fatty acid synthesis identifies C12orf49 as a regulator of lipid metabolism. Nat. Metab. 2, 499–513 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Chow, R. D. et al. In vivo profiling of metastatic double knockouts through CRISPR-Cpf1 screens. Nat. Methods 16, 405–408 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Gonatopoulos-Pournatzis, T. et al. Genetic interaction mapping and exon-resolution functional genomics with a hybrid Cas9-Cas12a platform. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 638–648 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Gier, R. A. et al. High-performance CRISPR-Cas12a genome editing for combinatorial genetic screening. Nat. Commun. 11, 3455 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. DeWeirdt, P. C. et al. Optimization of AsCas12a for combinatorial genetic screens in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 94–104 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Park, J. J. et al. Double knockout CRISPR screen in cancer resistance to T cell cytotoxicity. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.01.482556 (2022).

  126. Norman, T. M. et al. Exploring genetic interaction manifolds constructed from rich single-cell phenotypes. Science 365, 786–793 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Hiatt, J. et al. Efficient generation of isogenic primary human myeloid cells using CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Cell Rep. 35, 109105 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Dhainaut, M. et al. Spatial CRISPR genomics identifies regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell 185, 1223–1239 (2022). This study integrates spatial transcriptomics with CRISPR screening in tumour cells for regulators of the TME in vivo.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Schoenfeld, A. J. & Hellmann, M. D. Acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Cell 37, 443–455 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Hanna, R. E. et al. Massively parallel assessment of human variants with base editor screens. Cell 184, 1064–1080 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Simeonov, D. R. et al. Discovery of stimulation-responsive immune enhancers with CRISPR activation. Nature 549, 111–115 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Rosenblum, D. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing using targeted lipid nanoparticles for cancer therapy. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc9450 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Gao, J., Luo, T., Lin, N., Zhang, S. & Wang, J. A new tool for CRISPR-Cas13a-based cancer gene therapy. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 19, 79–92 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Waldman, A. D., Fritz, J. M. & Lenardo, M. J. A guide to cancer immunotherapy: from T cell basic science to clinical practice. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20, 651–668 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Beltra, J. C. et al. Developmental relationships of four exhausted CD8+ T cell subsets reveals underlying transcriptional and epigenetic landscape control mechanisms. Immunity 52, 825–841.e8 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Hudson, W. H. et al. Proliferating transitory T cells with an effector-like transcriptional signature emerge from PD-1+ stem-like CD8+ T cells during chronic infection. Immunity 51, 1043–1058 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Zander, R. et al. CD4+ T cell help is required for the formation of a cytolytic CD8+ T cell subset that protects against chronic infection and cancer. Immunity 51, 1028–1042 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Santomasso, B., Bachier, C., Westin, J., Rezvani, K. & Shpall, E. J. The other side of CAR T-cell therapy: cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and financial burden. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 39, 433–444 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Nahmad, A. D. et al. Frequent aneuploidy in primary human T cells after CRISPR-Cas9 cleavage. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01377-0 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Doench, J. G. et al. Rational design of highly active sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene inactivation. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1262–1267 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Adli, M. The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat. Commun. 9, 1911 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Qi, L. S. et al. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell 152, 1173–1183 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Gilbert, L. A. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-mediated control of gene repression and activation. Cell 159, 647–661 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Mali, P. et al. CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 833–838 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Maeder, M. L. et al. CRISPR RNA-guided activation of endogenous human genes. Nat. Methods 10, 977–979 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Perez-Pinera, P. et al. RNA-guided gene activation by CRISPR-Cas9-based transcription factors. Nat. Methods 10, 973–976 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Han, K. et al. Synergistic drug combinations for cancer identified in a CRISPR screen for pairwise genetic interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 463–474 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Shen, J. P. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions. Nat. Methods 14, 573–576 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Najm, F. J. et al. Orthologous CRISPR-Cas9 enzymes for combinatorial genetic screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 179–189 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Nissim, L., Perli, S. D., Fridkin, A., Perez-Pinera, P. & Lu, T. K. Multiplexed and programmable regulation of gene networks with an integrated RNA and CRISPR/Cas toolkit in human cells. Mol. Cell 54, 698–710 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Xie, K., Minkenberg, B. & Yang, Y. Boosting CRISPR/Cas9 multiplex editing capability with the endogenous tRNA-processing system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3570–3575 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Adamson, B. et al. A multiplexed single-cell CRISPR screening platform enables systematic dissection of the unfolded protein response. Cell 167, 1867–1882 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Hegde, M., Strand, C., Hanna, R. E. & Doench, J. G. Uncoupling of sgRNAs from their associated barcodes during PCR amplification of combinatorial CRISPR screens. PLoS ONE 13, e0197547 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Hanna, R. E. & Doench, J. G. A case of mistaken identity. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 802–804 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Zetsche, B. et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163, 759–771 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Zetsche, B. et al. Multiplex gene editing by CRISPR-Cpf1 using a single crRNA array. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 31–34 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Mandal, P. K. et al. Efficient ablation of genes in human hematopoietic stem and effector cells using CRISPR/Cas9. Cell Stem Cell 15, 643–652 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  161. Hendel, A. et al. Chemically modified guide RNAs enhance CRISPR-Cas genome editing in human primary cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 985–989 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Seki, A. & Rutz, S. Optimized RNP transfection for highly efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene knockout in primary T cells. J. Exp. Med. 215, 985–997 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Stadtmauer, E. A. et al. CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer. Science 367, eaba7365 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Choi, B. D. et al. CRISPR-Cas9 disruption of PD-1 enhances activity of universal EGFRvIII CAR T cells in a preclinical model of human glioblastoma. J. Immunother. Cancer 7, 304 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Lynn, R. C. et al. c-Jun overexpression in CAR T cells induces exhaustion resistance. Nature 576, 293–300 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Su, S. et al. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated disruption of PD-1 on human T cells for adoptive cellular therapies of EBV positive gastric cancer. Oncoimmunology 6, e1249558 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Ren, J. et al. Multiplex genome editing to generate universal CAR T cells resistant to PD1 inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 2255–2266 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Rupp, L. J. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated PD-1 disruption enhances anti-tumor efficacy of human chimeric antigen receptor T cells. Sci. Rep. 7, 737 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Guo, X. et al. Disruption of PD-1 enhanced the anti-tumor activity of chimeric antigen receptor T cells against hepatocellular carcinoma. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 1118 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Hu, W. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated PD-1 disruption enhances human mesothelin-targeted CAR T cell effector functions. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 68, 365–377 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Hu, B. et al. Nucleofection with plasmid DNA for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated inactivation of programmed cell death protein 1 in CD133-specific CAR T cells. Hum. Gene Ther. 30, 446–458 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Lu, Y. et al. Safety and feasibility of CRISPR-edited T cells in patients with refractory non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Med. 26, 732–740 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Morton, L. T. et al. Simultaneous deletion of endogenous TCRalphabeta for TCR gene therapy creates an improved and safe cellular therapeutic. Mol. Ther. 28, 64–74 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Legut, M., Dolton, G., Mian, A. A., Ottmann, O. G. & Sewell, A. K. CRISPR-mediated TCR replacement generates superior anticancer transgenic T cells. Blood 131, 311–322 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  175. Torikai, H. et al. Toward eliminating HLA class I expression to generate universal cells from allogeneic donors. Blood 122, 1341–1349 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. Cooper, M. L. et al. An “off-the-shelf” fratricide-resistant CAR-T for the treatment of T cell hematologic malignancies. Leukemia 32, 1970–1983 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  177. Gomes-Silva, D. et al. CD7-edited T cells expressing a CD7-specific CAR for the therapy of T-cell malignancies. Blood 130, 285–296 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Xie, S., Duan, J., Li, B., Zhou, P. & Hon, G. C. Multiplexed engineering and analysis of combinatorial enhancer activity in single cells. Mol. Cell 66, 285–299 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Datlinger, P. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14, 297–301 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Mimitou, E. P. et al. Multiplexed detection of proteins, transcriptomes, clonotypes and CRISPR perturbations in single cells. Nat. Methods 16, 409–412 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Frangieh, C. J. et al. Multimodal pooled Perturb-CITE-seq screens in patient models define mechanisms of cancer immune evasion. Nat. Genet. 53, 332–341 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Replogle, J. M. et al. Combinatorial single-cell CRISPR screens by direct guide RNA capture and targeted sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 954–961 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Xie, S., Cooley, A., Armendariz, D., Zhou, P. & Hon, G. C. Frequent sgRNA-barcode recombination in single-cell perturbation assays. PLoS ONE 13, e0198635 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Hill, A. J. et al. On the design of CRISPR-based single-cell molecular screens. Nat. Methods 15, 271–274 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Datlinger, P. et al. Ultra-high-throughput single-cell RNA sequencing and perturbation screening with combinatorial fluidic indexing. Nat. Methods 18, 635–642 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Replogle, J. M. et al. Mapping information-rich genotype-phenotype landscapes with genome-scale Perturb-seq. Cell 185, 2559–2575 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Papalexi, E. et al. Characterizing the molecular regulation of inhibitory immune checkpoints with multimodal single-cell screens. Nat. Genet. 53, 322–331 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  188. Rubin, A. J. et al. Coupled single-cell CRISPR screening and epigenomic profiling reveals causal gene regulatory networks. Cell 176, 361–376 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Liscovitch-Brauer, N. et al. Profiling the genetic determinants of chromatin accessibility with scalable single-cell CRISPR screens. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1270–1277 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. Pierce, S. E., Granja, J. M. & Greenleaf, W. J. High-throughput single-cell chromatin accessibility CRISPR screens enable unbiased identification of regulatory networks in cancer. Nat. Commun. 12, 2969 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  191. Feldman, D. et al. Optical pooled screens in human cells. Cell 179, 787–799 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Wroblewska, A. et al. Protein barcodes enable high-dimensional single-cell CRISPR screens. Cell 175, 1141–1155 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge all investigators whose contributions could not be discussed owing to space limitations, and N. Chapman for critical reading and editing of the manuscript. Research in the Chi laboratory was supported by ALSAC, US National Institutes of Health AI105887, AI131703, AI140761, AI150241, AI150514 and CA253188.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Immunology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

    Hao Shi & Hongbo Chi

  2. Genetic Perturbation Platform, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA

    John G. Doench

Authors
  1. Hao Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John G. Doench
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongbo Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to discussion of content for the article and to writing and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongbo Chi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.G.D. consults for Microsoft Research, Abata Therapeutics, Servier, Maze Therapeutics, BioNTech, Sangamo and Pfizer; consults for and has equity in Tango Therapeutics; serves as a paid scientific adviser to the Laboratory for Genomics Research, funded in part by GlaxoSmithKline; and receives funding support from the Functional Genomics Consortium: Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck and Vir Biotechnology. Interests of J.G.D. were reviewed and are managed by the Broad Institute in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. H.C. consults for Kumquat Biosciences. H.S. declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Immunology thanks I. Amit, S. Chen, E. Shifrut and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

The Cancer Genome Atlas: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/ccg/research/structural-genomics/tcga

Supplementary information

Glossary

Base editing

A CRISPR–Cas9-based genome editing technology that introduces point mutations in DNA without generating double-strand breaks by tethering a nuclease-defective Cas9-D10A nickase variant (Cas9n) to a deaminase.

Coverage

The average number of cells perturbed by each sgRNA in a pooled CRISPR screen, with a coverage of 500 cells generally recommended for screens to achieve optimal signal to noise ratio, although a lower coverage (such as 200 cells) may be used for enrichment screens.

CRISPR-mediated genetically engineered mouse models

(CRISPR-GEMMs). Mouse models enabled by CRISPR technology for pooled targeting of multiple genes through somatic genome editing and large-scale direct in vivo screening.

CRISPR-sciATAC

A method that simultaneously captures transcripts encoding an sgRNA and carries out single-cell combinatorial indexing ATAC-seq based on a unique combination of barcodes, which tag both the sgRNA and ATAC fragments from each cell.

CRISP-seq

A platform that integrates the resolution of massively parallel scRNA-seq with the genome editing scale of pooled CRISPR screens, with sgRNA identification inferred by a transcribed poly-adenylated unique guide index on the same vector.

CROP-seq

This platform makes use of an sgRNA delivery vector system that duplicates the sequence of a single-encoded sgRNA during lentiviral transduction to produce two expression cassettes on the same construct. One cassette expresses a functional sgRNA and the other expresses a polyadenylated transcript carrying the sgRNA sequence at the 3′ end for detection of individual sgRNAs in droplet-based single-cell RNA sequencing.

ECCITE-seq

Expanded CRISPR-compatible CITE-seq, which enables 5′ capture-based scRNA-seq, T cell receptor or B cell receptor V(D)J reconstruction, and surface protein marker detection as readouts, together with single-cell sgRNA sequence capture.

Mosaic-seq

Mosaic single-cell analysis by indexed CRISPR sequencing, a method that jointly measures the transcriptome of a cell and its sgRNA modulators inferred from the barcode sequences on the transduced sgRNA lentiviral vector backbone.

Perturb-ATAC

A method that combines multiplexed CRISPR interference or knockout with genome-wide chromatin accessibility profiling (assay for transposase accessible chromatin (ATAC)) in single cells captured by the Integrated Fluidics Circuit (Fluidigm) chambers.

Perturb-CITE-seq

A combined platform of 3′ droplet-based scRNA-seq with extracellular protein detection (by CITE-seq, which uses DNA-barcoded antibodies to convert the detection of proteins into a quantitative readout) and single-cell sgRNA detection. The method expresses an sgRNA on a polyadenylated transcript using a modified CROP-seq vector and performs a targeted ‘dial-out’ PCR amplification, which robustly links sgRNA identities to single-cell transcriptional and protein profiles.

Perturb-seq

A platform that combines a pooled CRISPR screen with single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) by encoding the identity of the perturbation on an expressed guide barcode.

Prime editing

A CRISPR–Cas9-based genome editing technology that introduces new sequence information into the genome by fusing Cas9-H840A nickase to a reverse transcriptase enzyme that promotes genome modification via a sequence template encoded within an extended prime editing guide RNA.

Pro-Codes

A protein barcoding vector system with combinatorial arrangements of linear epitopes, each paired with a different CRISPR sgRNA, for the analysis of multiple proteins to identify cells expressing different CRISPR sgRNAs at single-cell resolution.

Pseudotime

The ordering of each cell along a developmental lineage based on gene expression as profiled by scRNA-seq.

Single-guide RNA

(sgRNA). A single RNA molecule used to direct Cas9 protein to bind and cleave a particular DNA sequence for genome editing.

Spear-ATAC

A platform that enables simultaneous readouts of chromatin accessibility profiles and integrated sgRNA from thousands of individual cells by reading out sgRNA spacer sequences directly from genomic DNA rather than from RNA transcripts.

Tiling sgRNA library

An sgRNA library that is designed to incorporate many editing sites across the length of a gene and its regulatory elements to comprehensively evaluate their associated phenotypes.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, H., Doench, J.G. & Chi, H. CRISPR screens for functional interrogation of immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 23, 363–380 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-022-00802-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-022-00802-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research