MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198284674 · doi:10.26508/lsa.202101083

Paralogous synthetic lethality underlies genetic dependencies of the cancer-mutated gene <i>STAG2</i>

2021· article· en· W3198284674 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie L. Bailey, David Tieu, Andrea Habsid, Amy H.Y. Tong, Katherine Chan, Jason Moffat, Philip Hieter

Bibliographic record

VenueLife Science Alliance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCohesinBiologyCarcinogenesisGeneticsChromosome segregationGeneContext (archaeology)Chromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STAG2 , a component of the mitotically essential cohesin complex, is highly mutated in several different tumour types, including glioblastoma and bladder cancer. Whereas cohesin has roles in many cancer-related pathways, such as chromosome instability, DNA repair and gene expression, the complex nature of cohesin function has made it difficult to determine how STAG2 loss might either promote tumorigenesis or be leveraged therapeutically across divergent cancer types. Here, we have performed whole-genome CRISPR-Cas9 screens for STAG2 -dependent genetic interactions in three distinct cellular backgrounds. Surprisingly, STAG1 , the paralog of STAG2 , was the only negative genetic interaction that was shared across all three backgrounds. We also uncovered a paralogous synthetic lethal mechanism behind a genetic interaction between STAG2 and the iron regulatory gene IREB2 . Finally, investigation of an unusually strong context-dependent genetic interaction in HAP1 cells revealed factors that could be important for alleviating cohesin loading stress. Together, our results reveal new facets of STAG2 and cohesin function across a variety of genetic contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLife Science AllianceSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207