High-content analysis identified synergistic drug interactions between INK128, an mTOR inhibitor, and HDAC inhibitors in a non-small cell lung cancer cell line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of drug resistance is a major cause of cancer therapy failures. To inhibit drug resistance, multiple drugs are often treated together as a combinatorial therapy. In particular, synergistic drug combinations, which kill cancer cells at a lower concentration, guarantee a better prognosis and fewer side effects in cancer patients. Many studies have sought out synergistic combinations by small-scale function-based targeted growth assays or large-scale nontargeted growth assays, but their discoveries are always challenging due to technical problems such as a large number of possible test combinations. METHODS: To address this issue, we carried out a medium-scale optical drug synergy screening in a non-small cell lung cancer cell line and further investigated individual drug interactions in combination drug responses by high-content image analysis. Optical high-content analysis of cellular responses has recently attracted much interest in the field of drug discovery, functional genomics, and toxicology. Here, we adopted a similar approach to study combinatorial drug responses. RESULTS: By examining all possible combinations of 12 drug compounds in 6 different drug classes, such as mTOR inhibitors, HDAC inhibitors, HSP90 inhibitors, MT inhibitors, DNA inhibitors, and proteasome inhibitors, we successfully identified synergism between INK128, an mTOR inhibitor, and HDAC inhibitors, which has also been reported elsewhere. Our high-content analysis further showed that HDAC inhibitors, HSP90 inhibitors, and proteasome inhibitors played a dominant role in combinatorial drug responses when they were mixed with MT inhibitors, DNA inhibitors, or mTOR inhibitors, suggesting that recessive drugs could be less prioritized as components of multidrug cocktails. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our optical drug screening platform efficiently identified synergistic drug combinations in a non-small cell lung cancer cell line, and our high-content analysis further revealed how individual drugs in the drug mix interact with each other to generate combinatorial drug response.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".