ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2022
Overcoming selection bias in synthetic lethality prediction.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable/interpretable artificial intelligence and knowledge graph neural network for synthetic lethality prediction: overview, challenges, and future directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Synthetic lethality in cancer drug discovery: challenges and opportunities.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026Review
- Synthetic lethal connectivity and graph transformer improve synthetic lethality prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- ELISL: early-late integrated synthetic lethality prediction in cancer.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationSynthetic lethality (SL) between two genes occurs when simultaneous loss of function leads to cell death. This holds great promise for developing anti-cancer therapeutics that target synthetic lethal pairs of endogenously disrupted genes. Identifying novel SL relationships through exhaustive experimental screens is challenging, due to the vast number of candidate pairs. Computational SL prediction is therefore sought to identify promising SL gene pairs for further experimentation. However, current SL prediction methods lack consideration for generalizability in the presence of selection bias in SL data.
resultsWe show that SL data exhibit considerable gene selection bias. Our experiments designed to assess the robustness of SL prediction reveal that models driven by the topology of known SL interactions (e.g. graph, matrix factorization) are especially sensitive to selection bias. We introduce selection bias-resilient synthetic lethality (SBSL) prediction using regularized logistic regression or random forests. Each gene pair is described by 27 molecular features derived from cancer cell line, cancer patient tissue and healthy donor tissue samples. SBSL models are built and tested using approximately 8000 experimentally derived SL pairs across breast, colon, lung and ovarian cancers. Compared to other SL prediction methods, SBSL showed higher predictive performance, better generalizability and robustness to selection bias. Gene dependency, quantifying the essentiality of a gene for cell survival, contributed most to SBSL predictions. Random forests were superior to linear models in the absence of dependency features, highlighting the relevance of mutual exclusivity of somatic mutations, co-expression in healthy tissue and differential expression in tumour samples. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/joanagoncalveslab/sbsl. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.