An Unbiased Oncology Compound Screen to Identify Novel Combination Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combination drug therapy is a widely used paradigm for managing numerous human malignancies. In cancer treatment, additive and/or synergistic drug combinations can convert weakly efficacious monotherapies into regimens that produce robust antitumor activity. This can be explained in part through pathway interdependencies that are critical for cancer cell proliferation and survival. However, identification of the various interdependencies is difficult due to the complex molecular circuitry that underlies tumor development and progression. Here, we present a high-throughput platform that allows for an unbiased identification of synergistic and efficacious drug combinations. In a screen of 22,737 experiments of 583 doublet combinations in 39 diverse cancer cell lines using a 4 by 4 dosing regimen, both well-known and novel synergistic and efficacious combinations were identified. Here, we present an example of one such novel combination, a Wee1 inhibitor (AZD1775) and an mTOR inhibitor (ridaforolimus), and demonstrate that the combination potently and synergistically inhibits cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo This approach has identified novel combinations that would be difficult to reliably predict based purely on our current understanding of cancer cell biology. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(6); 1155-62. ©2016 AACR.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".