Setting molecular traps in yeast for identification of anticancer drug targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost 25 y have passed since Lee Hartwell et al. (1) proposed that systematic efforts to map genetic interactions in model systems promised to accelerate identification of new anticancer drug targets that exploit the unique molecular context of tumor cells. Synthetic lethal interactions, in which mutation of a gene causes cell death only when combined with mutation in another gene, are particularly relevant to cancer cells, given their many known genetic alterations (2). The promise of this concept has since been realized in the clinic: In fact, the synthetic lethality between poly(ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition and recombination gene deficiency (e.g., BRCA1 or BRCA2 ) has become a paradigm for personalized oncology (3) (Fig. 1 A ). Part of the effect of small-molecule PARP inhibitors is attributed to their ability to block the enzymatic activity of PARP while leaving DNA binding by PARP intact. The resulting “trapped” PARP–PARP inhibitor–DNA complex contributes to the antitumor activity of PARP inhibitors and so is thought to be a desirable property, although there are indications that trapping might also limit tolerability of PARP-inhibiting drugs (4). Nonetheless, small molecules capable of trapping their target on DNA are coveted due to the prospect of increased potency. Fig. 1. ( A ) PARP inhibitors can bind to and trap PARP on DNA, interrupting the normal PARP catalytic cycle. PARP inhibition and trapping is synthetic lethal with deficiencies in homologous recombination DNA repair genes. ( B ) Hamza et al. express an allele of human FEN1 that encodes a putative trapping version of FEN1, in the presence of the normal FEN1 gene. Systematic genetic interaction screening results in a genetic interaction profile for the trapping allele of FEN1 . ( C ) Genetic interaction screening of small molecule inhibitors of FEN1 could present two possibilities. If the small molecule traps FEN1 on DNA, then the genetic interaction profile should … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: grant.brown{at}utoronto.ca or brenda.andrews{at}utoronto.ca. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".