How Cancer Genomics Drives Cancer Biology: Does Synthetic Lethality Explain Mutually Exclusive Oncogenic Mutations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large-scale analyses of cancer genomes are revealing patterns of mutations that suggest biologically significant ideas about many aspects of cancer, including carcinogenesis, classification, and preventive and therapeutic strategies. Among those patterns is “mutual exclusivity”, a phenomenon observed when two or more mutations that are commonly observed in samples of a type of cancer are not found combined in individual tumors. We have been studying a striking example of mutual exclusivity: the absence of co-existing mutations in the KRAS and EGFR proto-oncogenes in human lung adenocarcinomas, despite the high individual frequencies of such mutations in this common type of cancer. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that toxic effects of the joint expression of KRAS and EGFR mutant oncogenes, rather than loss of any selective advantages conferred by a second oncogene that operates through the same signaling pathway, are responsible for the observed mutational pattern. We discuss the potential for understanding the physiological basis of such toxicity, for exploiting it therapeutically, and for extending the studies to other examples of mutual exclusivity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".