Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr 17;15(4):e1006888.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006888. eCollection 2019 Apr.

Predicting synthetic lethal interactions using conserved patterns in protein interaction networks

Affiliations

Predicting synthetic lethal interactions using conserved patterns in protein interaction networks

Graeme Benstead-Hume et al. PLoS Comput Biol. .

Abstract

In response to a need for improved treatments, a number of promising novel targeted cancer therapies are being developed that exploit human synthetic lethal interactions. This is facilitating personalised medicine strategies in cancers where specific tumour suppressors have become inactivated. Mainly due to the constraints of the experimental procedures, relatively few human synthetic lethal interactions have been identified. Here we describe SLant (Synthetic Lethal analysis via Network topology), a computational systems approach to predicting human synthetic lethal interactions that works by identifying and exploiting conserved patterns in protein interaction network topology both within and across species. SLant out-performs previous attempts to classify human SSL interactions and experimental validation of the models predictions suggests it may provide useful guidance for future SSL screenings and ultimately aid targeted cancer therapy development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. A schematic visualising how SLant’s source data is collated from STRING and the Gene Ontology Consortium, preprocessed so that this source data can be directed joined with BioGRID data for labeling and processed to create the final training set.
Feature generation was completed using R, the R igraph library and GoSemSim, a Bioconductor package.
Fig 2
Fig 2. A set of violin plots illustrating the value distributions for each feature in our human training set grouped into SSL and non-SSL classes.
The features were derived from 411 SSL and 411 non-SSL gene pairs (see S6 Table). Feature distributions that show greater variance between SSL and non-SSL gene pair classes, for example the shortest path feature, often provide improved predictive power in classifiers.
Fig 3
Fig 3
a. Human protein-protein interaction network with clustered communities generated by a spin glass random walk. Nodes and edges are coloured by their source community cluster as per the legend provided in Fig 3B. b. Community cluster connection graph where the weight of each connection corresponds to how many SSL interacting pairs begin and end at each community. We observe the largest count of SSL interactions occurring between cluster 9, notably associated with transcription regulation and DNA damage response GO terms and cluster 15, associated with MAPK cascade, cell proliferation and gene expression GO terms.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Cross-species ROC AUC scores for each models classification performance on our human SSL interaction validation set.
An additional curve for our consensus predictions was added separately based on the performance of the consensus validation set.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Carcinogenic survival assay results charting survival of PBRM1 / BAF180 knock-out cell lines with concentration intervals of the PARP inhibitor Olaparib, the POLA inhibitor Erocalciferol and the ABL inhibitor Dasatanib.
These results suggest PBRM1 mutant cells may be more sensitive to both the PARP and ABL1 inhibitors while gaining some resistance to POLA1 inhibition. Error bars measure standard error of measurement. All drug intervals are measured in mM.

References

    1. Varmus H, Kumar HS. Addressing the Growing International Challenge of Cancer: A Multinational Perspective. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:175cm2–175cm2. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005899 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yap TA, Workman P. Exploiting the Cancer Genome: Strategies for the Discovery and Clinical Development of Targeted Molecular Therapeutics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;52:549–73. 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010611-134532 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tomczak K, Czerwińska P, Wiznerowicz M. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): an immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemp Oncol. 2015;19:A68–77. 10.5114/wo.2014.47136 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baeissa H, Benstead-Hume G, Richardson CJ, Pearl FMG. Identification and analysis of mutational hotspots in oncogenes and tumour suppressors. Oncotarget. 2017;8:21290–304. 10.18632/oncotarget.15514 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Iorio F, Knijnenburg TA, Vis DJ, Bignell GR, Menden MP, Schubert M, et al. A Landscape of Pharmacogenomic Interactions in Cancer. Cell. 2016;166:740–54. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.017 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances