Table 1.
Tools selected in this study.
Fig 1.
Consensus matrix (â500kâ dataset).
(A) Consensus between tools that target the entire input dataset. (B) Consensus between all tools, for coding regions only.
Fig 2.
This plot shows, for each tool, the proportion of accepted guides that have been rejected by mm10db, and the reason for doing so. An asterisk (*) indicates the category relates to a rule implemented in mm10db for rejecting guides. mm10db is used as a reference point because it provides a reason for any guide it rejects.
Fig 3.
Tool performance on Xu guides.
For TUSCAN, mm10db, CHOPCHOP and phytoCRISP-Ex, colours indicate the whether a guide was accepted by the tool. For sgRNAScorer2, each colour indicates which percentile a particular guide scored in. For all others, colours represent the score distribution over the dataset.
Fig 4.
Tool performance on Doench guides.
For tools that score guides, the experimental gene rank score versus score reported by tool is plotted. For TUSCAN, mm10db, CHOPCHOP and phytoCRISP-Ex, the distribution of accepted and rejected guides is shown, based on their associated gene rank score.
Table 2.
Precision of tools on experimental data.
Fig 5.
Measured in effective basepairs per second; taking into account the total length of the sequences considered by any given tool. Three performance groups have been identified, and are shown with different symbols for their markers.
Table 3.
Run time per test.