Higher order synthetic lethals are keys to minimize cancer treatment effects on non-tumor cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic rewiring in cancer cells facilitates the supply of essential precursors for uncontrolled tumor growth. Exploring these cancer-specific metabolic alterations offers potential selective therapeutic strategies. However, targeting a single essential gene in cancer treatment often faces challenges, including resistance, lack of targetable oncogenes, and potential harm to non-tumor cells. Targeting multiple genes has been proposed as a solution to overcome these issues, e.g., a synthetic lethal (SL) set, defined as a minimal combination of non-lethal genetic perturbations that lead to cell death. This study theoretically examined the potential of SL sets to identify selective drug targets across 13 cancer types and the corresponding non-tumor tissues, utilizing context-specific genome-scale metabolic models. To ensure the minimization of therapeutic side effects, this work introduced the concept of strictly-selective drug targets (SSDTs) and the lack of harmful effects of the identified targets in all 13 different non-tumor tissues was meticulously verified. Accordingly, for 13 types of cancers, over 500 SSDTs were identified, predominantly including higher-order SL sets with more than two targets in each set. Interestingly, for specific cancers where single essential or SL genes could not provide viable therapeutic solutions, SSDTs were provided by higher-order SL sets. Thus, for the first time, this study demonstrates that leveraging higher-order SL sets may offer promising strictly selective therapeutic solutions. Furthermore, nine quadruple SSDTs were identified, which commonly target five different cancers without harming any of the 13 non-tumor tissues. Further experimental validation of these findings is essential to identify the most promising treatment candidates for future clinical studies/applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".