MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146811394 · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-1503

Synthetic Lethality in Cancer Therapeutics: The Next Generation

2021· review· en· W3146811394 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Setton, Michael Zinda, Nadeem Riaz, Daniel Durocher, Michal Zimmermann, María Koehler, Jorge S. Reis‐Filho, Simon N. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Discovery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsAegera Therapeutics (Canada)Amgen (Canada)Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsDruggabilitySynthetic lethalityCRISPRComputational biologySuppressorCarcinogenesisBiologyLoss functionDrug discoveryDrug developmentFunction (biology)GenePhenotypeCancer researchBioinformaticsDrugDNA repairGeneticsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic lethality (SL) provides a conceptual framework for tackling targets that are not classically "druggable," including loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor genes required for carcinogenesis. Recent technological advances have led to an inflection point in our understanding of genetic interaction networks and ability to identify a wide array of novel SL drug targets. Here, we review concepts and lessons emerging from first-generation trials aimed at testing SL drugs, discuss how the nature of the targeted lesion can influence therapeutic outcomes, and highlight the need to develop clinical biomarkers distinct from those based on the paradigms developed to target activated oncogenes. SIGNIFICANCE: SL offers an approach for the targeting of loss of function of tumor suppressor and DNA repair genes, as well as of amplification and/or overexpression of genes that cannot be targeted directly. A next generation of tumor-specific alterations targetable through SL has emerged from high-throughput CRISPR technology, heralding not only new opportunities for drug development, but also important challenges in the development of optimal predictive 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations198
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer DiscoverySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207