MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract IA020: Functional studies of genetic variation using precision genome editing

2024· article· en· W4399504696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francisco J. Sánchez‐Rivera, Samuel I. Gould, Alexandra Wuest, Kexin Dong, Grace A. Johnson, Alvin Hsu, Varun Narendra, Ondine Atwa, Stuart S. Levine, David R. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenome editingGenomeComputational biologyGeneticsIndelGenePrecision medicineGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tumor genomes often harbor a complex spectrum of single nucleotide mutations, small indels, and large chromosome rearrangements that can perturb coding and non-coding regions of the genome in ways that remain poorly understood. The mutational processes responsible for the genesis of these events are also not static; instead, they continue to operate throughout disease evolution and further diversify the genetic and phenotypic landscape of cancer cells. Mounting evidence suggests that tumor genotype can be an important determinant of disease progression and therapy response, such as by modulating the sensitivity or resistance of cancer cells to mutant-specific drugs. These types of observations have motivated efforts to treat cancers with genome-informed therapies, highlighting the need to understand how different genetic variants precisely affect gene function and overall tumor phenotypes. Variant-function maps that provide a mechanistic understanding of the biology driven by cancer-associated mutations are needed to design these types of treatment strategies. Precision genome editing technologies like base and prime editing are uniquely suited to tackle this problem. Nevertheless, deploying these methods for systematic variant-function studies and disease modeling in vivo has not been straightforward due to lack of robust and scalable platforms capable of assessing editing efficiency and precision, particularly at endogenous loci. With this goal in mind, we previously developed and applied high-throughput base editing ‘sensor’ approaches that link endogenous genome editing outcomes with synthetic DNA-based readouts and cellular fitness measurements. Using these approaches, we showed that several uncharacterized mutant p53 alleles drive cancer cell proliferation and in vivo tumor development. Building upon this work, we recently developed new prime editing guide RNA design tools and sensor-based approaches that similarly couple quantitative editing outcomes to cellular fitness, allowing us to significantly expand the breadth of cancer-associated mutations that can be interrogated using these precision genome editing technologies. In this talk, I will describe ongoing work using base and prime editing sensor libraries to probe the biological impact of thousands of functionally-distinct genetic variants in diverse types of protein-coding genes and families to learn how these influence various cancer phenotypes. I will also discuss how the implementation of these modular technologies will allow researchers to functionally disentangle the impact of endogenous and exogenous mutational processes on functional selection and tumor evolution with close to single base pair resolution. This generalizable precision genome editing framework will facilitate the functional interrogation of genetic variants across diverse biological contexts, providing much needed insight into cancer variant-function relationships that could be leveraged to develop more precise cancer treatment paradigms, including synthetic lethal therapies that exploit tumor genotype. Citation Format: Francisco J. Sánchez-Rivera, Samuel I. Gould, Alexandra N. Wuest, Kexin Dong, Grace A. Johnson, Alvin Hsu, Varun K. Narendra, Ondine Atwa, Stuart S. Levine, David R. Liu. Functional studies of genetic variation using precision genome editing [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Expanding and Translating Cancer Synthetic Vulnerabilities; 2024 Jun 10-13; Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2024;23(6 Suppl):Abstract nr IA020.

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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207