Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR–Cas9 screens

Nature

Volumn 568, Issue 7753, 2019, Pages 511-516

  Behan, Fiona M ^a,b   Iorio, Francesco ^a,b,c   Picco, Gabriele ^a   Gonçalves, Emanuel ^a   Beaver, Charlotte M ^a   Migliardi, Giorgia ^d,e   Santos, Rita ^f   Rao, Yanhua ^g   Sassi, Francesco ^d   Pinnelli, Marika ^d,e   Ansari, Rizwan ^a   Harper, Sarah ^a   Jackson, David Adam ^a   McRae, Rebecca ^a   Pooley, Rachel ^a   Wilkinson, Piers ^a   van der Meer, Dieudonne ^a   Dow, David ^b,f   Buser Doepner, Carolyn ^b,g   Bertotti, Andrea ^d,e   Trusolino, Livio ^d,e   Stronach, Euan A ^b,f   Saez Rodriguez, Julio ^b,c,h,i,j   Yusa, Kosuke ^a,b,k   Garnett, Mathew J ^a,b   more..

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b OpenTargets   (United Kingdom)

^c EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^d IRCCS   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^f GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^g GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^h RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^k KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; HEPATOCYTE NUCLEAR FACTOR 3ALPHA; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR GATA 3; TUMOR MARKER; WERNER SYNDROME ATP DEPENDENT HELICASE;

CANCER; CELL; DISEASE TREATMENT; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; GENETIC ENGINEERING; MEDICINE; PRIORITIZATION;

ARTICLE; CANCER THERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRISPR-CAS9 SYSTEM; EPITHELIAL MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE IDENTIFICATION; GENE TARGETING; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; HCT 116 CELL LINE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; WERNER SYNDROME; ANIMAL; ANTIBODY SPECIFICITY; CANCER TRANSPLANTATION; CLASSIFICATION; CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; GENE EDITING; GENETICS; HUMAN GENOME; LETHAL MUTATION; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; MOUSE; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; TUMOR CELL LINE;

ANIMALS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CELL LINE, TUMOR; CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; FEMALE; GENE EDITING; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; MICE; MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM TRANSPLANTATION; NEOPLASMS; ORGAN SPECIFICITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SYNTHETIC LETHAL MUTATIONS; WERNER SYNDROME; WERNER SYNDROME HELICASE;

EID: 85064233743     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1103-9     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Garraway, L. A. Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1806–1814 (2013).
2. Zehir, A. et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat. Med. 23, 703–713 (2017).
3. Hay, M., Thomas, D. W., Craighead, J. L., Economides, C. & Rosenthal, J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 40–51 (2014).
4. Koike-Yusa, H., Li, Y., Tan, E.-P., Del Castillo Velasco-Herrera, M. & Yusa, K. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR–guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 267–273 (2014).
5. Meyers, R. M. et al. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR–Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49, 1779–1784 (2017).
6. van der Meer, D. et al. Cell Model Passports—a hub for clinical, genetic and functional datasets of preclinical cancer models. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D923–D929 (2019).
7. Iorio, F. et al. A landscape of pharmacogenomic interactions in cancer. Cell 166, 740–754 (2016).
8. Hart, T. et al. High-resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163, 1515–1526 (2015).
9. Hart, T. et al. Evaluation and design of genome-wide CRISPR/SpCas9 knockout screens. G3 (Bethesda) 7, 2719–2727 (2017).
10. Tzelepis, K. et al. A CRISPR dropout screen identifies genetic vulnerabilities and therapeutic targets in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell Rep. 17, 1193–1205 (2016).
11. Wang, T., Wei, J. J., Sabatini, D. M. & Lander, E. S. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014).
12. McDonald, E. R. III et al. Project DRIVE: a compendium of cancer dependencies and synthetic lethal relationships uncovered by large-scale, deep RNAi screening. Cell 170, 577–592 (2017).
13. Massacesi, C. et al. PI3K inhibitors as new cancer therapeutics: implications for clinical trial design. OncoTargets Ther. 9, 203–210 (2016).
14. Brown, K. K. et al. Approaches to target tractability assessment — a practical perspective. MedChemComm 9, 606–613 (2018).
15. Viswanathan, V. S. et al. Dependency of a therapy-resistant state of cancer cells on a lipid peroxidase pathway. Nature 547, 453–457 (2017).
16. Chu, W. K. & Hickson, I. D. RecQ helicases: multifunctional genome caretakers. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9, 644–654 (2009).
17. Cortes-Ciriano, I., Lee, S., Park, W.-Y., Kim, T.-M. & Park, P. J. A molecular portrait of microsatellite instability across multiple cancers. Nat. Commun. 8, 15180 (2017).
18. Haugen, A. C. et al. Genetic instability caused by loss of MutS homologue 3 in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 68, 8465–8472 (2008).
19. Perry, J. J. P. et al. WRN exonuclease structure and molecular mechanism imply an editing role in DNA end processing. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 13, 414–422 (2006).
20. Kamath-Loeb, A. S., Welcsh, P., Waite, M., Adman, E. T. & Loeb, L. A. The enzymatic activities of the Werner syndrome protein are disabled by the amino acid polymorphism R834C. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 55499–55505 (2004).
21. Ketkar, A., Voehler, M., Mukiza, T. & Eoff, R. L. Residues in the RecQ C-terminal domain of the human Werner Syndrome helicase are involved in unwinding G-quadruplex DNA. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 3154–3163 (2017).
22. Chan, E. M. et al. WRN helicase is a synthetic lethal target in microsatellite unstable cancers. Nature 10.1038/s41586-019-1102-x (2019).
23. Saydam, N. et al. Physical and functional interactions between Werner syndrome helicase and mismatch-repair initiation factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 5706–5716 (2007).
24. Opresko, P. L., Sowd, G. & Wang, H. The Werner syndrome helicase/exonuclease processes mobile D-loops through branch migration and degradation. PLoS ONE 4, e4825 (2009).
25. Myung, K., Datta, A., Chen, C. & Kolodner, R. D. SGS1, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of BLM and WRN, suppresses genome instability and homeologous recombination. Nat. Genet. 27, 113–116 (2001).
26. Le, D. T. et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2509–2520 (2015).
27. Tsherniak, A. et al. Defining a cancer dependency map. Cell 170, 564–576 (2017).
28. Wang, T. et al. Gene essentiality profiling reveals gene networks and synthetic lethal interactions with oncogenic Ras. Cell 168, 890–903 (2017).
29. Ballouz, S. & Gillis, J. AuPairWise: a method to estimate RNA-seq replicability through co-expression. PLOS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004868 (2016). Home (25 Doggett St)
30. Hart, T. & Moffat, J. BAGEL: a computational framework for identifying essential genes from pooled library screens. BMC Bioinformatics 17, 164 (2016).
31. Yoshihama, M. et al. The human ribosomal protein genes: sequencing and comparative analysis of 73 genes. Genome Res. 12, 379–390 (2002).
32. Iorio, F. et al. Unsupervised correction of gene-independent cell responses to CRISPR–Cas9 targeting. BMC Genomics 19, 604 (2018).
33. Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, R106 (2010).
34. Aguirre, A. J. et al. Genomic copy number dictates a gene-independent cell response to CRISPR/Cas9 targeting. Cancer Discov. 6, 914–929 (2016).
35. Li, W. et al. MAGeCK enables robust identification of essential genes from genome-scale CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Biol. 15, 554 (2014).
36. Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005).
37. Durinck, S. et al. BioMart and Bioconductor: a powerful link between biological databases and microarray data analysis. Bioinformatics 21, 3439–3440 (2005).
38. Cerami, E. G. et al. Pathway Commons, a web resource for biological pathway data. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D685–D690 (2011).
39. Iorio, F. et al. Pathway-based dissection of the genomic heterogeneity of cancer hallmarks’ acquisition with SLAPenrich. Sci. Rep. 8, 6713 (2018).
40. GTEx Consortium. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat. Genet. 45, 580–585 (2013).
41. Cokelaer, T. et al. GDSCTools for mining pharmacogenomic interactions in cancer. Bioinformatics 34, 1226–1228 (2018).
42. Storey, J. D. & Tibshirani, R. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9440–9445 (2003).
43. Mi, H., Muruganujan, A. & Thomas, P. D. PANTHER in 2013: modeling the evolution of gene function, and other gene attributes, in the context of phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D377–D386 (2013).
44. Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W. & Smyth, G. K. voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 15, R29 (2014).
45. Garcia-Alonso, L. et al. Transcription factor activities enhance markers of drug sensitivity in cancer. Cancer Res. 78, 769–780 (2018).
46. Ritchie, M. E. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015).
47. Baralis, E., Bertotti, A., Fiori, A. & Grand, A. LAS: a software platform to support oncological data management. J. Med. Syst. 36, 81–90 (2012).