Extended Data Fig. 2: Contribution of sgRNA, tag site and protein features on successful tagging.
From: Pooled multicolour tagging for visualizing subcellular protein dynamics
a, Percentage of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library targeting different introns. b, Hydrophobicity score at tag sites of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library. Boxes represent 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, and whiskers represent 10th and 90th percentiles. P value: 1.59 ×10-46, two-sided Student’s t test. n = 87,428 sgRNAs with available hydrophobicity scores for target sites, examined over 1 pooled protein tagging experiment c, Percentage of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library with different hydrophobicity scores. d, Amino acid composition at tag sites of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library. e, AlphaFold confidence score of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library. Boxes represent 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, and whiskers represent 10th and 90th percentiles. P value: 6.63 ×10-21, two-sided Student’s t test. n = 78,653 sgRNAs with available Alphafold confidence scores of target sites, examined over 1 pooled protein tagging experiment f, Percentage of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library with different AlphaFold scores at the target sites. g, GuideScan sgRNA cutting efficiency score of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library. Boxes represent 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, and whiskers represent 10th and 90th percentiles. P value: 2.82 ×10-10, two-sided Student’s t test. n = 88,700 sgRNAs with available sgRNA cutting efficiency scores, examined over 1 pooled protein tagging experiment h, Percentage of high-efficiency sgRNAs and all sgRNAs in the library with different cutting efficiency scores.
