Cited by 3,276Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsChromatin Remodeling and CancerBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Defining a Cancer Dependency Map

Open access
Tsherniak, Aviad, Vazquez, Francisca, Montgomery, Phil G., Weir, Barbara A., Kryukov, Gregory, Cowley, Glenn S., Gill, Stanley, Harrington, William F. +17 more·2017·Cell

Abstract

Most human epithelial tumors harbor numerous alterations, making it difficult to predict which genes are required for tumor survival. To systematically identify cancer dependencies, we analyzed 501 genome-scale loss-of-function screens performed in diverse human cancer cell lines. We developed DEMETER, an analytical framework that segregates on- from off-target effects of RNAi. 769 genes were differentially required in subsets of these cell lines at a threshold of six SDs from the mean. We found predictive models for 426 dependencies (55%) by nonlinear regression modeling considering 66,646 molecular features. Many dependencies fall into a limited number of classes, and unexpectedly, in 82% of models, the top biomarkers were expression based. We demonstrated the basis behind one such predictive model linking hypermethylation of the UBB ubiquitin gene to a dependency on UBC. Together, these observations provide a foundation for a cancer dependency map that facilitates the prioritization of therapeutic targets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.010

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The advent of the CRISPR/Cas9 system has enabled screens that cover whole genomes.

    “In addition, the advent of the CRISPR/Cas9 system has enabled screens that cover whole genomes [17,96].”

    From Functional unknomics: Systematic screening of conserved genes of unknown function (2023) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Discussion describes CRISPR-Cas9 as a method for identifying essential genes and refers to CRISPR-Cas9 screens. The Introduction identifies the paper’s genome-scale screens as RNAi-based, however; our copy does not establish that CRISPR/Cas9 enabled whole-genome screens. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Analysis of PTGES3 gene essentiality upon Cas9 knockout across 1,070 diverse cancer cell lines in the Cancer Dependency Map demonstrated PTGES3 is not classified as a commonly essential gene.

    “Notably, analysis of PTGES3 gene essentiality upon Cas9 knockout across 1,070 diverse cancer cell lines present in the Cancer Dependency Map53 demonstrated that PTGES3 is not classified as a commonly essential gene (Extended Data Fig. 10c).”

    From Genome-scale CRISPR screens identify PTGES3 as a direct modulator of androgen receptor function in advanced prostate cancer (2025) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Discussion identifies this work as a cancer dependency map, supporting the citation as an identification of the resource. But the Abstract and Discussion describe RNAi screens in 501 cell lines, not Cas9 knockout screens in 1,070 lines. Our copy does not report the PTGES3 classification; the citing sentence presents that analysis as its own (Extended Data Fig. 10c). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Although several large databases of perturbations with bulk readouts exist, single-cell perturbation technologies are newer and their data are not unified.

    “Although several large databases of perturbations with bulk readouts exist, single-cell perturbation technologies are newer and the data are not unified31,32.”

    From scPerturb: harmonized single-cell perturbation data (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

  • RNAi and CRISPR studies in hundreds of cancer cell lines show KRAS mutant pancreatic, lung, and colorectal adenocarcinoma cells are more sensitive to loss of the KRAS oncogene than KRAS WT cancer cell lines.

    “RNAi mediated gene knockdown studies and CRISPR mediated gene knockout studies in hundreds of cancer cell lines have shown that KRAS mutant pancreatic, lung and colorectal adenocarcinoma cells are more sensitive to the loss of the KRAS oncogene than KRAS WT cancer cell lines (64, 65) (Figure 4).”

    From KRAS mutation in pancreatic cancer (2021) · cites this paper as [65]

  • In silico analysis showed all KRAS-mutant-dependent cell lines exhibited growth modulation related to PTK2 expression, unlike any KRAS wild-type cancer cell lines.

    “Analysis of data for shRNA modulated PTK2 knockdown showed that, unlike any of the KRAS wild‐type cancer cell lines, all of the KRAS‐mutant‐dependent cell lines exhibited growth modulation related to PTK2 expression (Figure S2B, Supporting Information).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsherniak, A., Vazquez, F., Montgomery, P. G., Weir, B. A., Kryukov, G., Cowley, G. S., Gill, S., Harrington, W. F., Pantel, S., Krill-Burger, J. M., Meyers, R. M., Ali, L., Goodale, A., Lee, Y., Jiang, G., Hsiao, J., Gerath, W. F. J., Howell, S., Merkel, E., Ghandi, M., Garraway, L. A., Root, D. E., Golub, T. R., Boehm, J. S., & Hahn, W. C.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Hahn, William C.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
170
Issue
3
Pages
564-576.e16
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2741508285
Cited by
3,276
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 464 · 2025: 678 · 2024: 521 · 2023: 406 · 2022: 342 · 2021: 334 · 2020: 244 · 2019: 171 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 22
FWCI
49.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (U01 CA176058)
  • NIH ICBP (U54 CA112962)
  • The Carlos Slim Foundation
  • Slim Initiative for Genomic Medicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
cancer dependency, dependency map, loss-of-function screen, Demeter, gene essentiality, prediction model, gene expression biomarkers, DNA hypermethylation, UBB, UBC, drug target prioritization, epithelial tumors, cancer cell lines
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Software, Ubiquitin, RNA Interference, Cell Line, Tumor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review