Systematic chemical-genetic and chemical-chemical interaction datasets for prediction of compound synergism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The network structure of biological systems suggests that effective therapeutic intervention may require combinations of agents that act synergistically. However, a dearth of systematic chemical combination datasets have limited the development of predictive algorithms for chemical synergism. Here, we report two large datasets of linked chemical-genetic and chemical-chemical interactions in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We screened 5,518 unique compounds against 242 diverse yeast gene deletion strains to generate an extended chemical-genetic matrix (CGM) of 492,126 chemical-gene interaction measurements. This CGM dataset contained 1,434 genotype-specific inhibitors, termed cryptagens. We selected 128 structurally diverse cryptagens and tested all pairwise combinations to generate a benchmark dataset of 8,128 pairwise chemical-chemical interaction tests for synergy prediction, termed the cryptagen matrix (CM). An accompanying database resource called ChemGRID was developed to enable analysis, visualisation and downloads of all data. The CGM and CM datasets will facilitate the benchmarking of computational approaches for synergy prediction, as well as chemical structure-activity relationship models for anti-fungal drug discovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".