Targeting protein–protein interactions in the DNA damage response pathways for cancer chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular DNA damage response (DDR) is an extensive signaling network that orchestrates DNA damage recognition, repair and avoidance, cell cycle progression and cell death. DDR alteration is a hallmark of cancer, with the deficiency in one DDR capability often compensated by a dependency on alternative pathways endowing cancer cells with survival and growth advantage. Targeting these DDR pathways has provided multiple opportunities for the development of cancer therapies. Traditional drug discovery has mainly focused on catalytic inhibitors that block enzyme active sites, which limits the number of potential drug targets within the DDR pathways. This review article describes the emerging approach to the development of cancer therapeutics targeting essential protein-protein interactions (PPIs) in the DDR network. The overall strategy for the structure-based design of small molecule PPI inhibitors is discussed, followed by an overview of the major DNA damage sensing, DNA repair, and DNA damage tolerance pathways with a specific focus on PPI targets for anti-cancer drug design. The existing small molecule inhibitors of DDR PPIs are summarized that selectively kill cancer cells and/or sensitize cancers to front-line genotoxic therapies, and a range of new PPI targets are proposed that may lead to the development of novel chemotherapeutics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".