ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
ELIMINATOR: essentiality analysis using multisystem networks and integer programming.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
A gene is considered as essential when it is indispensable for cells to grow and replicate in a certain environment. However, gene essentiality is not a structural property but rather a contextual one, which depends on the specific biological conditions affecting the cell. This circumstantial essentiality of genes is what brings the attention of scientist since we can identify genes essential for cancer cells but not essential for healthy cells. This same contextuality makes their identification extremely challenging. Huge experimental efforts such as Project Achilles where the essentiality of thousands of genes is measured together with a plethora of molecular data (transcriptomics, copy number, mutations, etc.) in over one thousand cell lines can shed light on the causality behind the essentiality of a gene in a given environment. Here, we present an in-silico method for the identification of patient-specific essential genes using constraint-based modelling (CBM). Our method expands the ideas behind traditional CBM to accommodate multisystem networks. In essence, it first calculates the minimum number of lowly expressed genes required to be activated by the cell to sustain life as defined by a set of requirements; and second, it performs an exhaustive in-silico gene knockout to find those that lead to the need of activating additional lowly expressed genes. We validated the proposed methodology using a set of 452 cancer cell lines derived from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia where an exhaustive experimental large-scale gene knockout study using CRISPR (Achilles Project) evaluates the impact of each removal. We also show that the integration of different essentiality predictions per gene, what we called Essentiality Congruity Score, reduces the number of false positives. Finally, we explored our method in a breast cancer patient dataset, and our results showed high concordance with previous publications. These findings suggest that identifying genes whose activity is fundamental to sustain cellular life in a patient-specific manner is feasible using in-silico methods. The patient-level gene essentiality predictions can pave the way for precision medicine by identifying potential drug targets whose deletion can induce death in tumour cells.
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.