Identifying collateral and synthetic lethal vulnerabilities within the DNA-damage response.
Copy number alteration
DNA damage repair genes
Synthetic lethality
Journal
BMC bioinformatics
ISSN: 1471-2105
Titre abrégé: BMC Bioinformatics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965194
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2021
15 May 2021
Historique:
received:
03
01
2021
accepted:
27
04
2021
entrez:
16
5
2021
pubmed:
17
5
2021
medline:
19
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A pair of genes is defined as synthetically lethal if defects on both cause the death of the cell but a defect in only one of the two is compatible with cell viability. Ideally, if A and B are two synthetic lethal genes, inhibiting B should kill cancer cells with a defect on A, and should have no effects on normal cells. Thus, synthetic lethality can be exploited for highly selective cancer therapies, which need to exploit differences between normal and cancer cells. In this paper, we present a new method for predicting synthetic lethal (SL) gene pairs. As neighbouring genes in the genome have highly correlated profiles of copy number variations (CNAs), our method clusters proximal genes with a similar CNA profile, then predicts mutually exclusive group pairs, and finally identifies the SL gene pairs within each group pairs. For mutual-exclusion testing we use a graph-based method which takes into account the mutation frequencies of different subjects and genes. We use two different methods for selecting the pair of SL genes; the first is based on the gene essentiality measured in various conditions by means of the "Gene Activity Ranking Profile" GARP score; the second leverages the annotations of gene to biological pathways. This method is unique among current SL prediction approaches, it reduces false-positive SL predictions compared to previous methods, and it allows establishing explicit collateral lethality relationship of gene pairs within mutually exclusive group pairs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A pair of genes is defined as synthetically lethal if defects on both cause the death of the cell but a defect in only one of the two is compatible with cell viability. Ideally, if A and B are two synthetic lethal genes, inhibiting B should kill cancer cells with a defect on A, and should have no effects on normal cells. Thus, synthetic lethality can be exploited for highly selective cancer therapies, which need to exploit differences between normal and cancer cells.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In this paper, we present a new method for predicting synthetic lethal (SL) gene pairs. As neighbouring genes in the genome have highly correlated profiles of copy number variations (CNAs), our method clusters proximal genes with a similar CNA profile, then predicts mutually exclusive group pairs, and finally identifies the SL gene pairs within each group pairs. For mutual-exclusion testing we use a graph-based method which takes into account the mutation frequencies of different subjects and genes. We use two different methods for selecting the pair of SL genes; the first is based on the gene essentiality measured in various conditions by means of the "Gene Activity Ranking Profile" GARP score; the second leverages the annotations of gene to biological pathways.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This method is unique among current SL prediction approaches, it reduces false-positive SL predictions compared to previous methods, and it allows establishing explicit collateral lethality relationship of gene pairs within mutually exclusive group pairs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33992077
doi: 10.1186/s12859-021-04168-7
pii: 10.1186/s12859-021-04168-7
pmc: PMC8126165
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
250Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 25;96(11):6199-204
pubmed: 10339565
Cell Death Differ. 2006 Aug;13(8):1256-9
pubmed: 16710363
Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):375-85
pubmed: 21653252
FEBS Lett. 2011 Jan 3;585(1):1-6
pubmed: 21094158
Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):398-406
pubmed: 21908773
J Hum Genet. 2021 May;66(5):509-518
pubmed: 33177701
FASEB J. 2008 Aug;22(8):2605-22
pubmed: 18434431
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jun;42(10):6106-27
pubmed: 24792170
Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Oct;18(10):613-623
pubmed: 28649135
Science. 2007 Feb 16;315(5814):972-6
pubmed: 17218491
Nature. 2012 Mar 28;483(7391):603-7
pubmed: 22460905
Biol Direct. 2015 Oct 01;10:57
pubmed: 26427375
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jan;42(Database issue):D472-7
pubmed: 24243840
Mol Oncol. 2011 Aug;5(4):387-93
pubmed: 21821475
Genome Biol. 2011;12(4):R41
pubmed: 21527027
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020 Jan;19(1):23-38
pubmed: 31712683
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991 Jun 5;83(11):757-66
pubmed: 2041050
Front Oncol. 2020 Sep 02;10:1569
pubmed: 32984016
Nature. 2005 Apr 14;434(7035):917-21
pubmed: 15829967
Elife. 2017 Aug 02;6:
pubmed: 28767039
Cancer Discov. 2012 Feb;2(2):172-189
pubmed: 22585861
Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jan;39(Database issue):D685-90
pubmed: 21071392
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008 Jan;9(1):47-59
pubmed: 18097445
Cancer Discov. 2012 May;2(5):401-4
pubmed: 22588877
BMC Med Genomics. 2011 Apr 14;4:34
pubmed: 21489305
Genome Biol. 2008;9(9):R135
pubmed: 18789146
Nat Rev Cancer. 2005 Sep;5(9):689-98
pubmed: 16110319
Brief Bioinform. 2019 Jan 18;20(1):254-266
pubmed: 28968730
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 14;9(1):2002
pubmed: 30765730