Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29499836›Full record

ReviewDrug resistance updates : reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy2018

New tools for old drugs: Functional genetic screens to optimize current chemotherapy.

Nora M Gerhards, Sven Rottenberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drug resistance updates : reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Docetaxel response in BRCA1,p53-deficient mammary tumor cells is affected by Huntingtin and BAP1.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Dissecting Molecular Phenotypes Through FACS-Based Pooled CRISPR Screens.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pooled Screens IdentifyMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nora M GerhardsInstitute of Animal Pathology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sven RottenbergInstitute of Animal Pathology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: sven.rottenberg@vetsuisse.unibe.ch.
Oncode Institute · NLUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite substantial advances in the treatment of various cancers, many patients still receive anti-cancer therapies that hardly eradicate tumor cells but inflict considerable side effects. To provide the best treatment regimen for an individual patient, a major goal in molecular oncology is to identify predictive markers for a personalized therapeutic strategy. Regarding novel targeted anti-cancer therapies, there are usually good markers available. Unfortunately, however, targeted therapies alone often result in rather short remissions and little cytotoxic effect on the cancer cells. Therefore, classical chemotherapy with frequent long remissions, cures, and a clear effect on cancer cell eradication remains a corner stone in current anti-cancer therapy. Reliable biomarkers which predict the response of tumors to classical chemotherapy are rare, in contrast to the situation for targeted therapy. For the bulk of cytotoxic therapeutic agents, including DNA-damaging drugs, drugs targeting microtubules or antimetabolites, there are still no reliable biomarkers used in the clinic to predict tumor response. To make progress in this direction, meticulous studies of classical chemotherapeutic drug action and resistance mechanisms are required. For this purpose, novel functional screening technologies have emerged as successful technologies to study chemotherapeutic drug response in a variety of models. They allow a systematic analysis of genetic contributions to a drug-responsive or -sensitive phenotype and facilitate a better understanding of the mode of action of these drugs. These functional genomic approaches are not only useful for the development of novel targeted anti-cancer drugs but may also guide the use of classical chemotherapeutic drugs by deciphering novel mechanisms influencing a tumor's drug response. Moreover, due to the advances of 3D organoid cultures from patient tumors and in vivo screens in mice, these genetic screens can be applied using conditions that are more representative of the clinical setting. Patient-derived 3D organoid lines furthermore allow the characterization of the "essentialome", the specific set of genes required for survival of these cells, of an individual tumor, which could be monitored over the course of treatment and help understanding how drug resistance evolves in clinical tumors. Thus, we expect that these functional screens will enable the discovery of novel cancer-specific vulnerabilities, and through clinical validation, move the field of predictive biomarkers forward. This review focuses on novel advanced techniques to decipher the interplay between genetic alterations and drug response.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorCRISPR-Cas SystemsDisease Models, AnimalDrug Resistance, NeoplasmDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorGene EditingGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMutagenesisNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineTreatment OutcomeTumor Cells, CulturedAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor3D organoidsChemotherapyCRISPR/Cas9DNA damageFunctional genetic screensGene essentialityHaploid cellsInsertional mutagenesisPredictive markers

Identifiers

PMID29499836
PMCPMC5844649
OpenAlexW2784259170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.