Perturbation of Interaction Networks for Application to Cancer Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a computational approach for studying the effect of potential drug combinations on the protein networks associated with tumor cells. The majority of therapeutics are designed to target single proteins, yet most diseased states are characterized by a combination of many interacting genes and proteins. Using the topology of protein-protein interaction networks, our methods can explicitly model the possible synergistic effect of targeting multiple proteins using drug combinations in different cancer types. The methodology can be conceptually split into two distinct stages. Firstly, we integrate protein interaction and gene expression data to develop network representations of different tissue types and cancer types. Secondly, we model network perturbations to search for target combinations which cause significant damage to a relevant cancer network but only minimal damage to an equivalent normal network. We have developed sets of predicted target and drug combinations for multiple cancer types, which are validated using known cancer and drug associations, and are currently in experimental testing for prostate cancer. Our methods also revealed significant bias in curated interaction data sources towards targets with associations compared with high-throughput data sources from model organisms. The approach developed can potentially be applied to many other diseased cell types.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".