Cited by 878Computational Drug Discovery MethodsCancer Cells and MetastasisCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Discovering the anticancer potential of non-oncology drugs by systematic viability profiling

Open access
Corsello, Steven M., Nagari, Rohith T., Spangler, Ryan D., Rossen, Jordan, Kocak, Mustafa, Bryan, Jordan G., Humeidi, Ranad, Peck, David +30 more·2020·Nature Cancer

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Anticancer uses of non-oncology drugs have occasionally been found, but such discoveries have been serendipitous. We sought to create a public resource containing the growth-inhibitory activity of 4,518 drugs tested across 578 human cancer cell lines. We used PRISM (profiling relative inhibition simultaneously in mixtures), a molecular barcoding method, to screen drugs against cell lines in pools. An unexpectedly large number of non-oncology drugs selectively inhibited subsets of cancer cell lines in a manner predictable from the molecular features of the cell lines. Our findings include compounds that killed by inducing phosphodiesterase 3A-Schlafen 12 complex formation, vanadium-containing compounds whose killing depended on the sulfate transporter SLC26A2, the alcohol dependence drug disulfiram, which killed cells with low expression of metallothioneins, and the anti-inflammatory drug tepoxalin, which killed via the multidrug resistance protein ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 (ABCB1). The PRISM drug repurposing resource (https://depmap.org/repurposing) is a starting point to develop new oncology therapeutics, and more rarely, for potential direct clinical translation. Golub and colleagues tested thousands of drugs not originally developed for oncology across 578 human cancer cell lines, revealing growth-inhibitory effects and providing a resource to identify drugs with the potential to be repurposed for cancer.

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 · 10.1038/s43018-019-0018-6

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?

  • Mining correlations between cytotoxicity of 4,518 clinical and preclinical small molecules and E3 ligase expression across hundreds of cancer cell lines identified CR8, a CDK inhibitor, as a molecular glue degrader.

    “Through systematic mining of databases for correlations between the cytotoxicity of 4,518 clinical and pre-clinical small molecules and E3 ligase expression levels across hundreds of human cancer cell lines,3–5 we identified CR8, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor,6 as a compound that acts as a molecular glue degrader.”

    From The CDK inhibitor CR8 acts as a molecular glue degrader that depletes cyclin K (2020) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) describes a resource measuring the growth-inhibitory activity of 4,518 drugs across 578 human cancer cell lines, and Results, ‘Predictive models of killing activity’ (page unavailable), reports that mRNA expression predicted drug response. The cited passages do not establish the more specific correlation with E3 ligase expression. Citations 3–5 attach to the database-mining clause; the sentence presents CR8’s identification as the citing authors’ own finding, not this source’s. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The AUC formulation used places AUC values on a scale between 0 and 1, where lower AUC values indicate increased sensitivity to treatment.

    “This formulation puts AUC values on a scale between 0 and 1, where lower AUC values indicate increased sensitivity to treatment (43).”

    From Mechanisms of Resistance to Oncogenic KRAS Inhibition in Pancreatic Cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Methods section (“Dose-response analysis”) says lower AUC indicates greater treatment sensitivity and that the normalized formulation places AUC between 0 and 1. It limits that range to curves whose lower asymptotes are less than 1, a condition the citing sentence omits. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cancer cell-line collections are deeply annotated, offering mutational, gene expression, protein abundance, and epigenetic profiles.

    “Cancer cell-line collections are deeply annotated, offering a wealth of data to the “cell” branch of the input, including mutational, gene expression, protein abundance, and epigenetic profiles, among others.187,188”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Broad Institute TCGA Genome Data Analysis Center. Analysis-ready standardized TCGA data from Broad GDAC Firehose 2016_01_28 run. (2016). doi: 10.7908/C11G0KM9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corsello, S. M., Nagari, R. T., Spangler, R. D., Rossen, J., Kocak, M., Bryan, J. G., Humeidi, R., Peck, D., Wu, X., Tang, A. A., Wang, V. M., Bender, S. A., Lemire, E., Narayan, R., Montgomery, P., Ben-David, U., Garvie, C. W., Chen, Y., Rees, M. G., Lyons, N. J., McFarland, J. M., Wong, B. T., Wang, L., Dumont, N., O’Hearn, P. J., Stefan, E., Doench, J. G., Harrington, C. N., Greulich, H., Meyerson, M., Vazquez, F., Subramanian, A., Roth, J. A., Bittker, J. A., Boehm, J. S., Mader, C. C., Tsherniak, A., & Golub, T. R.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Golub, Todd R.
Venue
Nature Cancer
Published
2020-01-20
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
235-248
ISSN
2662-1347 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3003119869
Cited by
878
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 176 · 2024: 152 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 56 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
54.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (KL2 TR002542, K08 CA230220, U01 HG008699, U54 HL127366)
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation
  • Next Generation Fund at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
  • Carlos Slim Foundation (Slim Initiative in Genomic Medicine for the Americas
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
drug repurposing, anticancer agents, cancer cell lines, PRISM, DNA barcoding, vanadium compounds, disulfiram, metallothionein, tepoxalin, growth inhibition
MeSH terms
Cell Line, Disulfiram, Humans, Neoplasms, Drug Repositioning

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