Cancer Cell’s Achilles Heels: Considerations for Design of Anti-Cancer Drug Combinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loss of function screens using shRNA (short hairpin RNA) and CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) are routinely used to identify genes that modulate responses of tumor cells to anti-cancer drugs. Here, by integrating GSEA (Gene Set Enrichment Analysis) and CMAP (Connectivity Map) analyses of multiple published shRNA screens, we identified a core set of pathways that affect responses to multiple drugs with diverse mechanisms of action. This suggests that these pathways represent "weak points" or "Achilles heels", whose mild disturbance should make cancer cells vulnerable to a variety of treatments. These "weak points" include proteasome, protein synthesis, RNA splicing, RNA synthesis, cell cycle, Akt-mTOR, and tight junction-related pathways. Therefore, inhibitors of these pathways are expected to sensitize cancer cells to a variety of drugs. This hypothesis was tested by analyzing the diversity of drugs that synergize with FDA-approved inhibitors of the proteasome, RNA synthesis, and Akt-mTOR pathways. Indeed, the quantitative evaluation indicates that inhibitors of any of these signaling pathways can synergize with a more diverse set of pharmaceuticals, compared to compounds inhibiting targets distinct from the "weak points" pathways. Our findings described here imply that inhibitors of the "weak points" pathways should be considered as primary candidates in a search for synergistic drug combinations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".