@article {842181,
	title = {Minimizing the risk of reporting false positives in large-scale RNAi screens.},
	journal = {Nat Methods},
	volume = {3},
	number = {10},
	year = {2006},
	month = {2006 Oct},
	pages = {777-9},
	abstract = {Large-scale RNA interference (RNAi)-based analyses, very much as other {\textquoteright}omic{\textquoteright} 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.},
	keywords = {Databases, Genetic, False Positive Reactions, Genetic Testing, Phenotype, Risk, RNA Interference, Sensitivity and Specificity},
	issn = {1548-7091},
	doi = {10.1038/nmeth1006-777},
	author = {Echeverri, Christophe J and Beachy, Philip A and Baum, Buzz and Boutros, Michael and Buchholz, Frank and Chanda, Sumit K and Downward, Julian and Ellenberg, Jan and Fraser, Andrew G and Hacohen, Nir and Hahn, William C and Jackson, Aimee L and Kiger, Amy and Linsley, Peter S and Lum, Lawrence and Ma, Yong and Mathey-Pr{\'e}v{\^o}t, Bernard and Root, David E and Sabatini, David M and Taipale, Jussi and Perrimon, Norbert and Bernards, Ren{\'e}}
}
