Synthetic Genetic Targeting of Genome Instability in Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is a leading cause of death throughout the World. A limitation of many current chemotherapeutic approaches is that their cytotoxic effects are not restricted to cancer cells, and adverse side effects can occur within normal tissues. Consequently, novel strategies are urgently needed to better target cancer cells. As we approach the era of personalized medicine, targeting the specific molecular defect(s) within a given patient's tumor will become a more effective treatment strategy than traditional approaches that often target a given cancer type or sub-type. Synthetic genetic interactions are now being examined for their therapeutic potential and are designed to target the specific genetic and epigenetic phenomena associated with tumor formation, and thus are predicted to be highly selective. In general, two complementary approaches have been employed, including synthetic lethality and synthetic dosage lethality, to target aberrant expression and/or function associated with tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes, respectively. Here we discuss the concepts of synthetic lethality and synthetic dosage lethality, and explain three general experimental approaches designed to identify novel genetic interactors. We present examples and discuss the merits and caveats of each approach. Finally, we provide insight into the subsequent pre-clinical work required to validate novel candidate drug targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".