MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417116661 · doi:10.64898/2025.12.01.691211

Organoid Pharmacotyping of Pancreatic Cancer Enables Functional Precision Oncology and Drug Repurposing

2025· article· W4417116661 on OpenAlexaff
He Dong, Frederick S. Vizeacoumar, Yue Zhang, Nicholas Jette, Jared D. W. Price, Vincent Maranda, Lihui Gong, Tanya Freywald, Jeff Patrick Vizeacoumar, Mary Lazell-Wright, Saruul Uuganbayar, Alain Morejon Morales, Rani Kanthan, Yuliang Wu, Anand Krishnan, Kathleen Felton, Bilal Marwa, Laura Hopkins, Gary Groot, John M. Shaw, Gavin Beck, Yigang Luo, Maurice Ogaick, Mike Moser, Andrew Freywald, Shahid Ahmed, Adnan Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenCameco (Canada)Saskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPancreatic cancerOrganoidPrecision medicineDrug discoveryDrugDrug repositioningDrug developmentSynthetic lethalityKRAS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the deadliest malignancies, with limited benefit from current cytotoxic regimens and poor predictive value of genomics alone. Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) represent a promising platform for functional precision oncology, yet systematic pharmacotyping of genomically annotated PDAC PDOs remains sparse. Experimental Design We established a clinically annotated panel of ten treatment-naïve PDAC PDOs spanning well-, moderately-, and poorly differentiated tumors. PDOs were evaluated for morphologic and genomic fidelity and screened against 1,813 clinically relevant small molecules in a high-throughput 384-well format. Drug sensitivities were quantified at the compound and drug-family levels and integrated with histologic grade, pathway-level mutational profiles, and available clinical treatment information. Results PDOs preserved hallmark tumor features, including glandular organization and subclonal mutational architecture. Pharmacotyping revealed both shared and subtype-specific vulnerabilities. Classical (well/moderately differentiated) PDOs showed enriched mutations in DNA repair, mitotic spindle, and chromatin-regulatory pathways and were preferentially sensitive to topoisomerase inhibitors, microtubule poisons, and HDAC inhibitors. In contrast, basal (poorly differentiated) PDOs displayed coordinated defects in mitochondrial function, vesicle trafficking, and ubiquitin-mediated proteostasis, at the pathway level, that conferred a previously unrecognized vulnerability to cardiac glycosides. Sensitivities to standard PDAC agents were heterogeneous across models, underscoring the limited predictive value of genotype alone and the need for functional drug testing. Conclusions This integrated genomic and pharmacologic analysis demonstrates that PDO pharmacotyping identifies biologically grounded, actionable vulnerabilities in PDAC, including novel therapeutic opportunities in basal, chemo-resistant tumors. These findings support PDO-guided functional profiling as a clinically relevant platform for refining drug selection and expanding treatment options for patients with PDAC. Significance PDAC is dominated by chemoresistance and lacks reliable genomic predictors of therapy response. By integrating high-throughput drug screening with mutation-informed pathway analysis in patient-derived organoids, we identify differentiation-linked therapeutic liabilities, including a previously unrecognized vulnerability to cardiac glycosides in basal PDAC. These results highlight PDO pharmacotyping as a powerful functional complement to genomics for guiding treatment selection in pancreatic cancer.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→