MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408766294 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.20.644275

Challenges and opportunities for drug repurposing in cancers based on synthetic lethality induced by tumor suppressor gene mutations

2025· preprint· en· W4408766294 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Vermeulen, Andrew W. Craig, Tomas Babak

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic lethalityLethalityRepurposingSuppressorDrugDrug repositioningGeneCancer researchDrug discoveryMutationTumor suppressor geneBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsPharmacologyBioinformaticsDNA repairCarcinogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although two-thirds of cancers arise from loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor genes, there are few approved targeted therapies linked to these alterations. Synthetic lethality offers a promising strategy to treat such cancers by targeting vulnerabilities unique to cancer cells with these mutations. To identify clinically relevant synthetic lethal interactions, we analyzed genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 knock-out (KO) viability screens from the Cancer Dependency Map and evaluated their clinical relevance in patient tumors through mutual exclusivity, a pattern indicative of synthetic lethality. Indeed, we found significant enrichment of mutual exclusivity for interactions involving cancer driver genes compared to non-driver mutations. To identify therapeutic opportunities, we integrated drug sensitivity data to identify inhibitors that mimic the effects of CRISPR-mediated KO. This approach revealed potential drug repurposing opportunities, including BRD2 inhibitors for bladder cancers with ARID1A mutations and SIN3A -mutated cell lines showing sensitivity to nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT) inhibitors. However, we discovered that pharmacological inhibitors often fail to phenocopy KO of matched drug targets, with only a small fraction of drugs inducing similar effects. This discrepancy reveals fundamental differences between pharmacological and genetic perturbations, emphasizing the need for approaches that directly assess the interplay of loss-of-function mutations and drug activity in cancer models. Author Summary Synthetic lethality is an emerging approach for targeting a biological dependency in cancer cells that does not harm normal cells. This strategy is particularly valuable for targeting loss-of-function mutations in tumor suppressor genes, which are more challenging to directly target. In an effort to accelerate treatments for cancer patients, we aimed to map out these dependencies and overlap them with responses to available drugs. We discovered different outcomes when a protein is targeted by a drug versus when that same target is disrupted genetically. Thus, if a drug is to be effectively repurposed as synthetic lethal agent, feasibility studies must capture drug biology, ideally by test the drug empirically in relevant cancer models. A second notable discovery is that in vitro synthetic lethal interactions involving cancer driver genes are significantly more likely to exhibit consistent patterns, such as mutual exclusivity in human tumor samples. This is important since selection of relevant cell lines is often critical in drug development to maximize potential for translation to clinical responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207