Leveraging Human Genetics to Guide Cancer Drug Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The high attrition rate of cancer drug development programs is a barrier to realizing the promise of precision oncology. We have examined whether the genetic insights from genome-wide association studies of cancer can guide drug development and repurposing in oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Across 37 cancers, we identified 955 genetic risk variants from the National Human Genome Research Institute-European Bioinformatics Institute genome-wide association study catalog. We linked these variants to target genes using strategies that were based on linkage disequilibrium, DNA three-dimensional structure, and integration of predicted gene function and expression. With the use of the Informa Pharmaprojects database, we identified genes that are targets of unique drugs and assessed the level of enrichment that would be afforded by incorporation of genetic information in preclinical and phase II studies. For targets not under development, we implemented machine learning approaches to assess druggability. RESULTS: For all preclinical targets incorporating genetic information, a 2.00-fold enrichment of a drug being successfully approved could be achieved (95% CI, 1.14- to 3.48-fold; P = .02). For phase II targets, a 2.75-fold enrichment could be achieved (95% CI, 1.42- to 5.35-fold; P < .001). Application of genetic information suggests potential repurposing of 15 approved nononcology drugs. CONCLUSION: The findings illustrate the value of using insights from the genetics of inherited cancer susceptibility discovery projects as part of a data-driven strategy to inform drug discovery. Support for cancer germline genetic information for prospective targets is available online from the Institute of Cancer Research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".