A High-Throughput Yeast Assay Identifies Synergistic Drug Combinations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug combinations are commonly used in the treatment of a range of diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and bacterial infections. Such combinations are less likely to be thwarted by resistance, and they have the desirable potential to be synergistic. Synergistic combinations can have decreased toxicity if lower doses of the constituent agents can be used. Conversely, antagonistic combinations can lead to lower efficacy of a treatment. Unfortunately, practical limitations, including the large number of possible combinations to be tested and the importance of optimizing concentrations and order of addition, discourage systematic studies of compound combinations. To address these limitations, we present a platform to screen drug combinations at multiple concentrations with varying orders of addition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, at high throughput. In a proof of principle, we screened all possible pairwise combinations of 11 DNA damaging agents and found that of the 66 combinations tested, six were synergistic and three were antagonistic. The strength of two-thirds of these combinations was dependent on the order in which the drugs were added to the cells. We further tested the synergistic and antagonistic combinations in two cancer cell lines and found the combination of mitomycin C and irinotecan to be synergistic in both cell lines. This pilot study demonstrates the utility of using yeast for screening large matrices of drug combinations, and it provides a means to prioritize drug combination tests in human cells. Finally, we underscore the importance of testing the order of addition for assessing drug combinations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it