Coessentiality and cofunctionality: a network approach to learning genetic vulnerabilities from cancer cell line fitness screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic interaction networks are a powerful approach for functional genomics, and the synthetic lethal interactions that comprise these networks offer a compelling strategy for identifying candidate cancer targets. As the number of published shRNA and CRISPR perturbation screens in cancer cell lines expands, there is an opportunity for integrative analysis that goes further than pairwise synthetic lethality and discovers genetic vulnerabilities of related sets of cell lines. We re-analyze over 100 high-quality, genome-scale shRNA screens in human cancer cell lines and derive a quantitative fitness score for each gene that accurately reflects genotype-specific gene essentiality. We identify pairs of genes with correlated essentiality profiles and merge them into a cancer coessentiality network, where shared patterns of genetic vulnerability in cell lines give rise to clusters of functionally related genes in the network. Network clustering discriminates among all three defined subtypes of breast cancer cell lines (basal, luminal, and Her2-amplified), and further identifies novel subsets of Her2+ and ovarian cancer cells. We demonstrate the utility of the network as a platform for both hypothesis-driven and data-driven discovery of context-specific essential genes and their associated biomarkers.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".