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

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

Publisher Correction: LifeTime and improving European healthcare through cell-based interceptive medicine (Nature, (2020), 587, 7834, (377-386), 10.1038/s41586-020-2715-9)

In this Perspective, owing to an error in the HTML, the surname of author Alejandro López-Tobón of the LifeTime Community Working Groups consortium was indexed as ‘Tobon’ rather than ‘López-Tobón’ and the accents were missing. The HTML version of the original Perspective has been corrected; the PDF and print versions were always correct. © 2021, The Author(s)