Abstract
Background
Two genes are synthetically lethal if loss of function of either one of the two genes does not result in cell death, whereas loss of function of both genes together results in being detrimental to cell survival. This concept has been the basis for developing personalized, precision treatments, which can selectively damage tumor cells and minimize toxicity to normal tissues. Tumor cells often harbor mutations in genes involved in DNA repair pathways, forcing them to switch to alternative repair pathways, leading to chemotherapeutic resistance. These interactions, if targeted, could be synthetically lethal. We aimed to summarize synthetically lethal gene pairs that could be utilized to selectively target cancer cells and minimize side effects on normal tissues. The objective of this review is to study druggable synthetically lethal gene pairs for targeted cancer therapy that have been identified through various genetic screens and functional studies.
Methods
A systematic literature search will be conducted to extract synthetically lethal gene pairs that can be specifically targeted to cancer cells. Owing to the relatively recent research pertaining to this field, the literature search will incorporate data from 1956. The search will be conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. The narrative approach will guide the analysis and synthesis of the results.
Discussion
This review highlights scientific articles that report druggable synthetically lethal gene pairs by testing the efficacy of targeted inhibitors in clonogenic assays. These include research studies that identify synthetically lethal gene pairs detected through CRISPR screens by knocking out one or two genes within the same cell and testing the potency of inhibitors to specifically kill malignant cells.
Systematic review registration
10.17605/OSF.IO/5BCW6.
Keywords: Synthetic lethal, DNA damage repair pathways, CRISPR/Cas9, Cancer, Targeted therapy
Background
Cancer is a complex heterogeneous disease characterized by uncontrolled cellular proliferation and invasion of neighboring tissues. One of the hallmarks leading to this uncontrollable growth is genomic instability caused by perturbation of the DNA maintenance machinery [1]. Numerous defects involving genetic changes in genes that produce proteins involved in DNA damage recognition, repair, and protection of DNA from mutagens have been reported [1]. These proteins and their functions in conferring genomic stability are good chemotherapeutic targets and radiation sensitizers [2]. There is now a greater emphasis on developing personalized, precision therapies that can selectively target tumor cells while minimizing toxicity to normal tissues. This can be achieved through selectively targeting tumor-specific genetic interactions, a concept known as synthetic lethality. A pair of genes is synthetically lethal if loss of function of either gene does not lead to cell death, whereas loss of both genes results in cell death [3]. Tumors harbor mutations in one or more DNA repair pathways, leading to a reliance on alternative pathways [4] Recent drug discovery efforts have focused on developing therapeutic approaches targeting these alternative pathways, leading to the selective killing of cancer cells by exploiting the concept of synthetic lethality. Numerous drug candidates, which have been developed on the basis of synthetic lethality, are now in clinical trials, whereas advances in biotechnology and genomics are leading to the identification of novel synthetic lethal interactions [5].
DNA damage recognition proteins identify DNA damage, which can be caused by several exogenous and endogenous factors [6, 7]. This process also determines the choice of pathway for DNA repair. Therefore, to maintain genomic stability, mammalian cells have evolved highly conserved DNA repair mechanisms to correct DNA damage [3, 8]. There are six key DNA repair pathways that are involved depending on the type of DNA lesion; however, a significant crossover exists between the effector proteins in each pathway [2]. These pathways include base excision repair (BER) for single-stranded breaks [9], nucleotide excision repair for bulky lesions and cross links [10, 11], and mismatch repair (MMR) for single nucleotide mutations such as substitutions, insertions, and deletions [12, 13]. DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) are repaired through nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) and resection-mediated repair through homologous recombination (HR), alternative NHEJ (Alt-NHEJ) [14], and single-stranded annealing (SSA) [15]. The choice of pathway is based on multiple parameters, one of the most important factors being the phase of the cell cycle. Defective DNA repair leads to genomic instability, which could promote neoplastic transformation and subsequent carcinogenesis [16].
Many studies now focus on identifying novel synthetic lethal targets through CRISPR screens. Xu Feng et al. performed a genome-wide CRISPR screen for knockout of loss-of-function tumor suppressor genes in isogenic cell lines and revealed several synthetic lethal interactions. They discovered that a tumor suppressor gene has the potential to serve as an anticancer target for cancers that are deficient in another tumor suppressor gene. This study revealed a synthetic lethal relationship between TSC2 and STK11, between KDM5C and BAP1, and between SMARCA4 or ARID1A and PTEN [17]. Another study by Zhou Z et al. conducted a short hairpin RNA (shRNA) library screen followed by next-generation deep sequencing and discovered that PRKDC was synthetically lethal in human lung fibroblasts overexpressing MYC [18]. These gene interactions can be used as drug targets and exploited for targeted cancer therapy.
One of the most common examples of drugs that target synthetic lethal gene interactions is poly(ADP‒ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis), which have been approved for treating breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers with loss-of-function BRCA1/2 mutations [19]. Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are responsible for homologous recombination, an error-free DNA repair pathway used for repairing DSBs. HR deficiency in cancer cells caused by deleterious mutations in BRCA1/2 can be selectively targeted by inhibiting PARP, a class of enzymes involved in repairing different types of DNA damage. Inhibition or trapping of PARP on DNA leads to DSB formation, which further requires HR proteins such as BRCA1/2 for repair. Therefore, in HR-deficient cells, PARPis can lead to the accumulation of DSBs, leading to genomic instability and cell death [20]. This synthetic lethal interaction between PARPis and BRCA1/2 deficiency has been exploited to treat several cancers with HR deficiency.
In the proposed scoping review, we aim to summarize and explore druggable synthetically lethal pairs that could be potential anticancer drug targets. A preliminary search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted in January 2025, and no current or underway systematic reviews or scoping reviews on the topic were identified. This study reports research articles that have identified synthetically lethal gene pairs via clonogenic assays such as shRNA knockdown and CRISPR knockout screens for one or two genes within the same cell and tests the potency of the inhibitors to specifically target cancerous cells.
Methods and design
Aim
To study druggable synthetically lethal gene pairs in targeted cancer therapy, which have been identified through various genetic screens and functional studies.
Participants
NA
Concept
This scoping review will examine the concept of synthetic lethality. Tumors often harbor mutations in one or more DNA repair pathways, leading to a reliance on alternative pathways [4]. Therefore, inhibition of an important alternative pathway can lead to a nonviable accumulation of unrepaired DNA and subsequent apoptosis. Defects in DNA maintenance can increase the susceptibility of cancer cells to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but over time, these cells may develop resistance. To counter this, DNA damage repair therapies use chemosensitizers and exploit synthetic lethality to selectively target cancer cells while minimizing side effects. Compared with conventional therapy, this approach is promising because of its efficiency and reduced side effects, making it a highly recognized strategy in cancer treatment. Identification and targeting of synthetic lethal interactions could help develop precise and personalized cancer therapies while minimizing adverse effects, as observed in cases of traditional chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
Context
This review focuses on how genes involved in DNA repair pathways compensate for each other and lead to chemotherapy resistance. We also explore the concept of synthetic lethality by summarizing the combinations of genetic pathways and drug interactions that have been identified through genetic or mutational screens and other functional studies and correlate their importance with the potential of being utilized as novel and future drug targets for cancer treatment.
Types of sources
This scoping review considers experimental study designs, which include genetic screens and functional studies. This review will also examine observational study designs and quantitative studies.
Search strategy
Published studies in English until January 2025 will be searched by combining free text terms and database-specific controlled vocabulary related to synthetic lethality and cancer using Boolean operators (OR, AND) and appropriate field tags (All felids, Title, Abstract). The search will be carried out on Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Additionally, Google Scholar and the reference list of all included sources of evidence will also be screened for locating additional studies. The text words present in the title, abstracts, and index terms of the relevant articles were used to develop the search strategy. The initial search strategy was developed for Medline (PubMed) and customized according to the respective databases till January 2025 (Table 2 in Appendix).
Study/source of evidence selection
After the search, all the selected citations will be aggregated and uploaded to Rayyan, and duplicates will be removed [21]. The articles will be subsequently screened by two independent reviewers on the basis of the inclusion criteria of the review. Articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be excluded from the study. Disagreements between the two reviewers will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The results of the search and inclusion process will be reported completely in the final scoping review and presented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram [22].
Data extraction
Data will be extracted from papers included in the scoping review by two independent reviewers with the data extraction tool developed and pilot tested by the reviewers. Disagreements will be discussed with a third reviewer to resolve any differences. Attempts to contact the authors of the included studies will be made if there are any missing or additional data needed. The data extracted will include specific details about the concept, context, study methods, and key findings relevant to the review questions. The draft of the data extraction is attached in Table 3 in Appendix.
Data analysis and presentation
The data will be presented in tabular and diagrammatical formats. The analysis will be performed on the basis of information pertaining to synthetic lethal gene pairs that have been discovered through CRISPR screens and other functional studies. This analysis will also include chemotherapeutic drugs that target synthetically lethal gene pairs.
It will encompass drugs that are used for treating patients and those that are undergoing clinical trials. For example, olaparib is used as a chemotherapeutic drug to treat breast and ovarian cancer patients. It is a PARP inhibitor and causes the apoptosis of cancer cells, which results from a BRCA1/2 mutation. PARP and BRCA1/2 are synthetically lethal gene pairs, which implies that loss of function of both of these genes can lead to cell death [23].
The diagrammatical format represents the strategy used to congregate all the information. We will also utilize narrative summaries to report additional details, such as study citations and methodological details.
Discussion
This review aims to summarize synthetically lethal gene pairs that may be possible therapeutic targets for precision medicine in cancer. Tumor cells harbor mutations in genes that are responsible for DNA repair and force them to rely on alternate pathways, which leads to chemotherapeutic resistance [2, 4]. Normal cells possess intact pathways to repair such damage, leading to the selective killing of cancer cells. The definition of synthetic lethality has been expanded to encompass pharmacological inhibition of one gene product with inactivation of the other in cancer cells [24].
The perturbation of one of the synthetically lethal gene pairs by chemical or genetic inhibition in cancer cells with an already defective gene partner can be detrimental to survival [3]. Large-scale CRISPR-based screens have been utilized to identify numerous synthetic lethal gene pairs, many of which are in drug development pipelines. A few examples of candidate genes are BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, KRAS, MYC, ATM, ATR, and CHK1, which are targeted for specific cancer types and are currently at different stages in clinical trials [25–30]. We also examined synthetic lethal gene interaction data from previously published genetic screens, such as ARID1A, TSC2, KDM5C, SMARCA4, PTEN, WEE1, BRG1, WRN, TP53, CCNE1, BRCA1/2, SF3B1, and KRAS, which are presumed to play a role in multiple cancers [17, 31–36], as detailed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Synthetic lethal gene pairs and associated cancers identified from genetic screens and functional studies
| S. No. | Gene | Synthetic lethal partner | Cancer type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ARID1A | TEAD1 | Hepatocellular carcinoma [32] |
| 2 | TSC2 | STK11 | Non-small cell lung cancer [17] |
| 3 | KDM5C | BAP1 | Diverse cancers [17] |
| 4 | SMARCA4 | ARID1A | Diverse cancers such as ovarian cancer, breast cancer, lung adenocarcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma [17] |
| 5 | SMARCA4 | PTEN | Cowden syndrome, hamartomas, and other diverse cancers [17] |
| 6 | ARID1A | ARID1B | Neuroblastoma and other diverse cancers [17] |
| 7 | ARID1A | EZH2 | Breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other diverse cancers [17] |
| 8 | PTEN | CHD1 | Cowden syndrome, hamartomas and other diverse cancers [17] |
| 9 | WEE1 | ATR | Breast cancer [28, 30] |
| 10 | BRG1 | PTEN | Prostate cancer [33] |
| 11 | WRN | MMR genes | Colon cancer [34] |
| 12 | TP53 | MDM2 | TP53 is a critical tumor suppressor gene that is mutated in more than half of the human cancers [25] |
| 13 | TP53 | MYC | TP53 is a critical tumor suppressor gene that is mutated in more than half of the human cancers [31] |
| 14 | CCNE1 | PKMYT1 | High-grade serous ovarian cancer, uterine tumors, and gastro-oesophageal cancers [35] |
| 15 | BRCA1/2 | CIP2A | BRCA1/2 mutated cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer [26] |
| 16 | BRCA2 | APEX2 and FEN1 | BRCA2 mutated cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer [36] |
| 17 | SF3B1 | BRCA1/2 | BRCA2 mutated cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer [28] |
| 18 | KRAS | NOP56 | Lung cancer [29] |
Periodic exposure of tumors to radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs could confer resistance to therapy, leading to poorer clinical outcomes. To overcome this setback, recent drug discovery initiatives have resorted to the development of developing radiosensitizers and chemosensitizers through the concept of synthetic lethality. This strategy for precision medicine aims to selectively target cancer cells while minimizing adverse effects. The application of synthetic lethality for DNA damage repair inhibitors has gained immense recognition because of the complexity of multiple pathways compensating for each other, contributing to drug resistance. This seems to be a promising approach because it exploits this concept against cancer cells and makes it more selective, efficient, and lethal for malignant cells with fewer side effects than conventional therapy.
This review focuses on summarizing synthetically lethal gene pairs and explores whether their interactions can be utilized for targeted cancer therapy. This study provides a resource summarizing several synthetically lethal gene pairs for further functional studies with respect to expanding these drugs into clinical trials and testing their efficacy.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the Department of Medical Genetics, Kasturba Medical Hospital, Manipal Academy of Higher Education for institutional support.
Abbreviations
- PRISMA-ScR
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews
- PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- CRISPR
Clustered Regularly Interspersed short palindromic repeats
- PARP
Poly (ADP‒ribose) polymerase
- PARPi
PARP inhibition
- PARPis
PARP inhibitors
- MMR
Mismatch repair:
- HR
Homologous recombination
- NHEJ
Nonhomologous end joining
- Alt-NHEJ
Alternative NHEJ
- SSA
Single-stranded annealing
- DSB
Double-stranded breaks
Appendix
Table 2.
Search strategy
| Database | Date of search | Search strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Pubmed | 14–01-2025 | (((((((((((synthetic) AND (lethality)) OR (synthetic lethal mutations)) AND (neoplasms)) AND (DNA repair)) OR (DNA repair deficiency disorders))) OR (crisprassociated protein 9)) OR (crisprcas systems)) OR (crispri screens)) OR (Antitumor Drug Screening Assays)) OR (RNA interference) |
| Scopus | 14–01-2025 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (synthetic AND lethality OR synthetic AND lethal AND mutations) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (neoplasms) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (dna AND repair OR dna AND repair AND deficiency AND disorders) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (crispr AND associated AND protein 9 OR crispr AND cas AND systems OR crispr AND screens) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (drug AND screening AND assays, AND antitumor) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (rnai) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (cancer)) |
| Embase | 14–01-2025 | ((“synthetic lethality”/exp OR “synthetic lethality” OR “synthetic lethal mutation”/exp OR “synthetic lethal mutation”) AND (“neoplasm”/exp OR “neoplasm”) AND (“dna repair”/exp OR “dna repair” OR “disorders of dna synthesis and repair”/exp OR “disorders of dna synthesis and repair”) OR “crispr associated protein”/exp OR “crispr associated protein” OR “crispr cas system”/exp OR “crispr cas system” OR “crispr screens” OR ((“crispr”/exp OR crispr) AND screens) OR “drug screening”/exp OR “drug screening”) AND (“rnai”/exp OR “rnai”) AND (“malignant neoplasm”/exp OR “malignant neoplasm”) |
| Web of Science | 14–01-2025 | (((((((((((synthetic) AND (lethality)) OR (synthetic lethal mutations)) AND (neoplasms)) AND (DNA repair)) OR (DNA repair deficiency disorders))) OR (crisprassociated protein 9)) OR (crisprcas systems)) OR (crispri screens)) OR (Antitumor Drug Screening Assays)) OR (RNA interference) |
Table 3.
Data extraction instrument
| General information about the study | |
|---|---|
| Authors | Zizhi Tang Jun Chen, Ming Zeng, Xiaojun Wang, Chang Guo, Peng Yue, Xiaohu Zhang, Huiqiang Lou, Dezhi Mu, Daochun Kong, Antony M. Carr, and Cong Liu |
| Year of publication | 23rd May 2022 |
| Country in which it was conducted | China and UK |
| Details of the study | |
| Aim | To characterize the potential role of ENDOD1 in DNA repair |
| Context | This study uncovers the role of ENDOD1 in the context of DNA repair pathway and its synthetically lethal interaction with TP53 which is a well-known tumor suppressor gene. It also explores the possibility of ENDOD1 serving as a specific target against cancer cells in view of its synthetic lethal relationship with TP53 |
| Type of study | In vitro study |
| Method | Cell proliferation and viability; Clonogenic assays: Comet Assay to assess DNA repair efficiency; CCK8 colorimetry to show the siRNA knock out efficiency; Measurement for PARP-DNA complex; Immunofluorescence Immunofluorescentstaining and Western Blotting; Flow cytometry and fluorescent-activated cell sorting (FACS); Animal, biopsies and histochemical staining |
| Key findings | Identified ENDOD1 as a potential wide-spectrum and cancer-specific target for SL drug discovery |
Authors’ contributions
RC was responsible for conceptualizing the review, developing the search strategy, and writing the manuscript draft. RD was in charge of conceptualization and subject expert. VSD was involved in conceptualization and methodology. All authors were involved in reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors approved the final protocol manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal This study was funded partly by Gov. of India Ramalingaswami Fellowship (BT/RLF/Re-entry/21/2018) awarded to Rama Rao Damerla.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
Not applicable.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. PMID: 21376230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Abbotts R, Thompson N, Madhusudan S. DNA repair in cancer: emerging targets for personalized therapy. Cancer Manag Res. 2014;19(6):77–92. 10.2147/CMAR.S50497. PMID:24600246;PMCID:PMC3933425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Topatana W, Juengpanich S, Li S, Cao J, Hu J, Lee J, Suliyanto K, Ma D, Zhang B, Chen M, Cai X. Advances in synthetic lethality for cancer therapy: cellular mechanism and clinical translation. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):118. 10.1186/s13045-020-00956-5. PMID:32883316;PMCID:PMC7470446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jeggo PA, Löbrich M. How cancer cells hijack DNA double-strand break repair pathways to gain genomic instability. Biochem J. 2015;471(1):1–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Li S, Topatana W, Juengpanich S, Cao J, Hu J, Zhang B, Ma D, Cai X, Chen M. Development of synthetic lethality in cancer: molecular and cellular classification. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ramírez-Gamboa D, Díaz-Zamorano AL, Meléndez-Sánchez ER, Reyes-Pardo H, Villaseñor-Zepeda KR, López-Arellanes ME, Sosa-Hernández JE, Coronado-Apodaca KG, Gámez-Méndez A, Afewerki S, Iqbal HMN, Parra-Saldivar R, Martínez-Ruiz M. Photolyase production and current applications: a review. Molecules. 2022;27(18):5998. 10.3390/molecules27185998. PMID:36144740;PMCID:PMC9505440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mishina Y, Duguid EM, He C. Direct reversal of DNA alkylation damage. Chem Rev. 2006;106(2):215–32. 10.1021/cr0404702. PMID:16464003;PMCID:PMC2432087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hiom K. DNA repair: bacteria join in. Curr Biol. 2003;13(1):R28-30. 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01385-4. PMID: 12526762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Seeberg E, Eide L, Bjørås M. The base excision repair pathway. Trends Biochem Sci. 1995;20(10):391–7. 10.1016/s0968-0004(00)89086-6. PMID: 8533150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.de Laat WL, Jaspers NG, Hoeijmakers JH. Molecular mechanism of nucleotide excision repair. Genes Dev. 1999;13(7):768–85. 10.1101/gad.13.7.768. PMID: 10197977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Copeland NE, Hanke CW, Michalak JA. The molecular basis of xeroderma pigmentosum. Dermatol Surg. 1997;23(6):447–55. 10.1111/j.1524-4725.1997.tb00084.x. PMID: 9217796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kolodner RD, Marsischky GT. Eukaryotic DNA mismatch repair. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1999;9(1):89–96. 10.1016/s0959-437x(99)80013-6. PMID: 10072354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Papadopoulos N, Lindblom A. Molecular basis of HNPCC: mutations of MMR genes. Hum Mutat. 1997;10(2):89–99. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1004(1997)10:2%3c89::AID-HUMU1%3e3.0.CO;2-H. (PMID: 9259192). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Adachi N, Ishino T, Ishii Y, Takeda S, Koyama H. DNA ligase IV-deficient cells are more resistant to ionizing radiation in the absence of Ku70: implications for DNA double-strand break repair. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(21):12109–13. 10.1073/pnas.201271098. PMID:11593023;PMCID:PMC59776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Otarbayev D, Myung K. Exploring factors influencing choice of DNA double-strand break repair pathways. DNA Repair. 2024;25:103696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Groelly FJ, Fawkes M, Dagg RA, Blackford AN, Tarsounas M. Targeting DNA damage response pathways in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022;5:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Feng X, Tang M, Dede M, Su D, Pei G, Jiang D, Wang C, Chen Z, Li M, Nie L, Xiong Y. Genome-wide CRISPR screens using isogenic cells reveal vulnerabilities conferred by loss of tumor suppressors. Sci Adv. 2022;8(19):eabm6638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Zhou Z, Patel M, Ng N, Hsieh MH, Orth AP, Walker JR, Batalov S, Harris JL, Liu J. Identification of synthetic lethality of PRKDC in MYC-dependent human cancers by pooled shRNA screening. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:1–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lord CJ, Ashworth A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science. 2017;355(6330):1152–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bhin J, Dias MP, Gogola E, Rolfs F, Piersma SR, de Bruijn R, de Ruiter JR, van den Broek B, Duarte AA, Sol W, van der Heijden I. Multiomics analysis reveals distinct nonreversion mechanisms of PARPi resistance in BRCA1-versus BRCA2-deficient mammary tumors. Cell Rep. 2023;42(5):112538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29:372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Setton J, Zinda M, Riaz N, Durocher D, Zimmermann M, Koehler M, Reis-Filho JS, Powell SN. Synthetic lethality in cancer therapeutics: the next generation. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(7):1626–35. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1503. Epub 2021 Apr 1. PMID: 33795234; PMCID: PMC8295179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hartwell LH, Szankasi P, Roberts CJ, Murray AW, Friend SH. Integrating genetic approaches into the discovery of anticancer drugs. Science. 1997;278(5340):1064–8. 10.1126/science.278.5340.1064. PMID: 9353181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hu J, Cao J, Topatana W, Juengpanich S, Li S, Zhang B, Shen J, Cai L, Cai X, Chen M. Targeting mutant p53 for cancer therapy: direct and indirect strategies. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Adam S, Rossi SE, Moatti N, De Marco ZM, Xue Y, Ng TF, Álvarez-Quilón A, Desjardins J, Bhaskaran V, Martino G, Setiaputra D. The CIP2A–TOPBP1 axis safeguards chromosome stability and is a synthetic lethal target for BRCA-mutated cancer. Nat Cancer. 2021;2(12):1357–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bradbury A, Hall S, Curtin N, Drew Y. Targeting ATR as cancer therapy: a new era for synthetic lethality and synergistic combinations? Pharmacol Ther. 2020;1(207):107450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lappin KM, Barros EM, Jhujh SS, Irwin GW, McMillan H, Liberante FG, Latimer C, La Bonte MJ, Mills KI, Harkin DP, Stewart GS. Cancer-associated SF3B1 mutations confer a BRCA-like cellular phenotype and synthetic lethality to PARP inhibitors. Can Res. 2022;82(5):819–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Yang Z, Liang SQ, Zhao L, Yang H, Marti TM, Hegedüs B, Gao Y, Zheng B, Chen C, Wang W, Dorn P. Metabolic synthetic lethality by targeting NOP56 and mTOR in KRAS-mutant lung cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022;41(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wu X, Kang X, Zhang X, Xie W, Su Y, Liu X, Guo L, Guo E, Li F, Hu D, Qin X. WEE1 inhibitor and ataxia telangiectasia and RAD3-related inhibitor trigger stimulator of interferon gene-dependent immune response and enhance tumor treatment efficacy through programmed death-ligand 1 blockade. Cancer Sci. 2021;112(11):4444–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tansey WP. Mammalian MYC proteins and cancer. N J Sci. 2014;2:2014. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Srivatsa S, Montazeri H, Bianco G, Coto-Llerena M, Marinucci M, Ng CK, Piscuoglio S, Beerenwinkel N. Discovery of synthetic lethal interactions from large-scale pancancer perturbation screens. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):7748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ding Y, Li N, Dong B, Guo W, Wei H, Chen Q, Yuan H, Han Y, Chang H, Kan S, Wang X. Chromatin remodelling ATPase BRG1 and PTEN are synthetic lethal in prostate cancer. J Clin Investig. 2019;129(2):759–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Picco G, Cattaneo CM, van Vliet EJ, Crisafulli G, Rospo G, Consonni S, Vieira SF, Rodríguez IS, Cancelliere C, Banerjee R, Schipper LJ. Werner helicase is a synthetic-lethal vulnerability in mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer refractory to targeted therapies, chemotherapy, and immunotherapyWerner helicase is a target in advanced colorectal cancers. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(8):1923–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gallo D, Young JT, Fourtounis J, Martino G, Álvarez-Quilón A, Bernier C, Duffy NM, Papp R, Roulston A, Stocco R, Szychowski J. CCNE1 amplification is synthetic lethal with PKMYT1 kinase inhibition. Nature. 2022;604(7907):749–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Mengwasser KE, Adeyemi RO, Leng Y, Choi MY, Clairmont C, D’Andrea AD, Elledge SJ. Genetic screens reveal FEN1 and APEX2 as BRCA2 synthetic lethal targets. Mol Cell. 2019;73(5):885–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
