ArticleCancers2022
Identifying Lethal Dependencies with HUGE Predictive Power.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic and chemotherapeutic response prediction by proliferation essential gene signature: Investigating POLE2 in bladder cancer progression and cisplatin resistance.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Synthetic lethality in large-scale integrated metabolic and regulatory network models of human cells.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2023Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for precision medicine in acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent functional genomic screens—such as CRISPR-Cas9 or RNAi screening—have fostered a new wave of targeted treatments based on the concept of synthetic lethality. These approaches identified LEthal Dependencies (LEDs) by estimating the effect of genetic events on cell viability. The multiple-hypothesis problem is related to a large number of gene knockouts limiting the statistical power of these studies. Here, we show that predictions of LEDs from functional screens can be dramatically improved by incorporating the “HUb effect in Genetic Essentiality” (HUGE) of gene alterations. We analyze three recent genome-wide loss-of-function screens—Project Score, CERES score and DEMETER score—identifying LEDs with 75 times larger statistical power than using state-of-the-art methods. Using acute myeloid leukemia, breast cancer, lung adenocarcinoma and colon adenocarcinoma as disease models, we validate that our predictions are enriched in a recent harmonized knowledge base of clinical interpretations of somatic genomic variants in cancer (AUROC > 0.87). Our approach is effective even in tumors with large genetic heterogeneity such as acute myeloid leukemia, where we identified LEDs not recalled by previous pipelines, including FLT3-mutant genotypes sensitive to FLT3 inhibitors. Interestingly, in-vitro validations confirm lethal dependencies of either NRAS or PTPN11 depending on the NRAS mutational status. HUGE will hopefully help discover novel genetic dependencies amenable for precision-targeted therapies in cancer. All the graphs showing lethal dependencies for the 19 tumor types analyzed can be visualized in an interactive tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.