Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40935881›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2026

Synthetic lethality in cancer drug discovery: challenges and opportunities.

Emanuel Gonçalves, Colm J Ryan, David J Adams

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Medea: An omics AI agent for therapeutic discovery.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

Emanuel GonçalvesInstituto Superior Técnico (IST), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. emanuel.v.goncalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt.ORCID 0000-0002-9967-5205
Colm J RyanSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. colm.ryan@ucd.ie.ORCID 0000-0003-2750-9854
David J AdamsWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK. da1@sanger.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic lethality, first proposed more than two decades ago, has long held immense promise for targeted cancer therapy. Although the clinical success of PARP inhibition in BRCA-mutant cancers stands as proof of concept, few other synthetic lethal interactions have been translated from preclinical findings into effective therapies. This slow pace of translation stems in part from the difficulty of developing drugs against genetic dependencies, but also reflects the cell- and tissue-specific nature of these interactions. In this Review, we outline recent advances in the discovery and validation of synthetic lethal pairs, from their discovery in large-scale genetic screens to the development of drugs for the clinic. We discuss how alternative CRISPR-based approaches - including combinatorial screens, base editing and saturation mutagenesis - are now being used to discover new tractable interactions. We also examine how machine learning models can enable prioritization of candidate pairs and the identification of biomarkers for patient stratification. Finally, we highlight alternative phenotypic readouts, such as high-content imaging and single-cell profiling, which enable the dissection of phenotypes beyond simple cell growth or fitness. Together, these developments are refining the synthetic lethality paradigm and advancing its potential for cancer therapy.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrug DiscoveryNeoplasmsSynthetic Lethal MutationsAnimalsHumansAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.