<i>In vitro</i> evolution and whole genome analysis to study chemotherapy drug resistance in haploid human cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background In vitro evolution and whole genome analysis has proven to be a powerful method for studying the mechanism of action of small molecules in many haploid microbes but has generally not been applied to human cell lines in part because their diploid state complicates the identification of variants that confer drug resistance. To determine if haploid human cell could be used in MOA studies, we evolved resistance to five different anticancer drugs (doxorubicin, gemcitabine, etoposide, topotecan, and paclitaxel) using a near-haploid cell line (HAP1) and then analyzed the genomes of the drug resistant clones, developing a bioinformatic pipeline that involved filtering for high frequency alleles predicted to change protein sequence, or alleles which appeared in the same gene for multiple independent selections with the same compound. Applying the filter to sequences from 28 drug resistant clones identified a set of 21 genes which was strongly enriched for known resistance genes or known drug targets ( TOP1, TOP2A, DCK, WDR33, SLCO3A1) . In addition, some lines carried structural variants that encompassed additional known resistance genes ( ABCB1, WWOX and RRM1) . Gene expression knockdown and knockout experiments of 10 validation targets showed a high degree of specificity and accuracy in our calls and demonstrates that the same drug resistance mechanisms found in diverse clinical samples can be evolved, discovered and studied in an isogenic background.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".