A High-Throughput Yeast Assay Identifies Synergistic Drug Combinations
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".