Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Genomics-guided pre-clinical development of cancer therapies

Nature Cancer volume 1, pages 482–492 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Since the approval of trastuzumab for the treatment of breast cancers more than two decades ago, many clinically effective targeted anti-cancer therapies have been developed. Here we consider the evidence that supports genomics-guided drug development and review the concept of oncogene addiction, including recent findings that inform this therapeutic approach. We consider non-oncogene addiction and how this synthetic-lethal paradigm could expand the range of new therapies, particularly for currently undruggable cancers. We discuss how CRISPR-based genetic screening is enhancing the ability to identify new targets. We conclude by considering opportunities for expanding the scope and refining the use of precision cancer medicines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Targeting oncogene addiction and non-oncogene addiction in cancer.
Fig. 2: A genomics-guided precision medicine knowledge bank to guide therapy.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luo, J., Solimini, N. L. & Elledge, S. J. Principles of cancer therapy: oncogene and non-oncogene addiction. Cell 136, 823–837 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lawrence, M. S. et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505, 495–501 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium. Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes. Nature 578, 82–93 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arrowsmith, J. & Miller, P. Trial watch: phase II and phase III attrition rates 2011-2012. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 569 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DiMasi, J. A., Grabowski, H. G. & Hansen, R. W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 47, 20–33 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson, M. R. et al. The support of human genetic evidence for approved drug indications. Nat. Genet. 47, 856–860 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. King, E. A., Davis, J. W. & Degner, J. F. Are drug targets with genetic support twice as likely to be approved? Revised estimates of the impact of genetic support for drug mechanisms on the probability of drug approval. PLoS Genet. 15, e1008489 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 419–431 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Banerji, U. & Workman, P. Critical parameters in targeted drug development: the pharmacological audit trail. Semin. Oncol. 43, 436–445 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weinstein, I. B. & Joe, A. Oncogene addiction. Cancer Res. 68, 3077–3080 (2008). discussion 3080.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharma, S. V. & Settleman, J. Oncogene addiction: setting the stage for molecularly targeted cancer therapy. Genes Dev. 21, 3214–3231 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinstein, I. B. et al. Disorders in cell circuitry associated with multistage carcinogenesis: exploitable targets for cancer prevention and therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 3, 2696–2702 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein, I. B. Cancer. Addiction to oncogenes—the Achilles heal of cancer. Science 297, 63–64 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baselga, J. et al. Phase II study of weekly intravenous recombinant humanized anti-p185HER2 monoclonal antibody in patients with HER2/neu-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 14, 737–744 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cobleigh, M. A. et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 2639–2648 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pegram, M. D. et al. Phase II study of receptor-enhanced chemosensitivity using recombinant humanized anti-p185HER2/neu monoclonal antibody plus cisplatin in patients with HER2/neu-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer refractory to chemotherapy treatment. J. Clin. Oncol. 16, 2659–2671 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Druker, B. J. et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1031–1037 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mok, T. S. et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 947–957 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Demetri, G. D. et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 472–480 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chapman, P. B. et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2507–2516 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Solomon, B. J. et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2167–2177 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Drilon, A. et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 731–739 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaw, A. T. et al. Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 1963–1971 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Canon, J. et al. The clinical KRAS(G12C) inhibitor AMG 510 drives anti-tumour immunity. Nature 575, 217–223 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hallin, J. et al. The KRASG12C inhibitor MRTX849 provides insight toward therapeutic susceptibility of KRAS-mutant cancers in mouse models and patients. Cancer Discov. 10, 54–71 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen, H., Liu, H. & Qing, G. Targeting oncogenic Myc as a strategy for cancer treatment. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 3, 5 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramalingam, S. S. et al. Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 41–50 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tomasello, C. et al. Resistance to EGFR inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: clinical management and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 123, 149–161 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sequist, L. V. et al. Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 75ra26 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Piotrowska, Z. et al. Landscape of acquired resistance to osimertinib in EGFR-mutant NSCLC and clinical validation of combined EGFR and RET inhibition with osimertinib and BLU-667 for acquired RET fusion. Cancer Discov. 8, 1529–1539 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hyman, D. M. et al. Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 726–736 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Corcoran, R. B. et al. EGFR-mediated re-activation of MAPK signaling contributes to insensitivity of BRAF mutant colorectal cancers to RAF inhibition with vemurafenib. Cancer Discov. 2, 227–235 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Prahallad, A. et al. Unresponsiveness of colon cancer to BRAF(V600E) inhibition through feedback activation of EGFR. Nature 483, 100–103 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kopetz, S. et al. Phase II pilot study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 4032–4038 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Jonsson, P. et al. Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes. Nature 571, 576–579 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Stewart, A. et al. Differences in signaling patterns on PI3K inhibition reveal context specificity in KRAS-mutant cancers. Mol. Cancer Ther. 18, 1396–1404 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Iorio, F. et al. A landscape of pharmacogenomic interactions in cancer. Cell 166, 740–754 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Garraway, L. A. & Jänne, P. A. Circumventing cancer drug resistance in the era of personalized medicine. Cancer Discov. 2, 214–226 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shaw, A. T. et al. Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1189–1197 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jänne, P. A. et al. AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1689–1699 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kopetz, S. et al. Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1632–1643 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van der Velden, D. L. et al. The Drug Rediscovery protocol facilitates the expanded use of existing anticancer drugs. Nature 574, 127–131 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Reid, R. J. D. et al. A synthetic dosage lethal genetic interaction between CKS1B and PLK1 is conserved in yeast and human cancer cells. Genetics 204, 807–819 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bian, Y. et al. Synthetic genetic array screen identifies PP2A as a therapeutic target in Mad2-overexpressing tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1628–1633 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Molenaar, J. J. et al. Inactivation of CDK2 is synthetically lethal to MYCN over-expressing cancer cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 12968–12973 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nagel, R., Semenova, E. A. & Berns, A. Drugging the addict: non-oncogene addiction as a target for cancer therapy. EMBO Rep. 17, 1516–1531 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ledermann, J. et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1382–1392 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fong, P. C. et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 123–134 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mateo, J. et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1697–1708 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Golan, T. et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 317–327 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Swisher, E. M. et al. Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18, 75–87 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Robson, M. et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 523–533 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. PARP inhibitors: synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science 355, 1152–1158 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Murai, J. et al. Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by clinical PARP inhibitors. Cancer Res. 72, 5588–5599 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Barber, L. J. et al. Secondary mutations in BRCA2 associated with clinical resistance to a PARP inhibitor. J. Pathol. 229, 422–429 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Noordermeer, S. M. & van Attikum, H. PARP inhibitor resistance: a tug-of-war in BRCA-mutated cells. Trends Cell Biol. 29, 820–834 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lord, C. J. & Ashworth, A. BRCAness revisited. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 110–120 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Meijer, T. G. et al. Functional ex vivo assay reveals homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer beyond BRCA gene defects. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 6277–6287 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Timms, K. M. et al. Association of BRCA1/2 defects with genomic scores predictive of DNA damage repair deficiency among breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res. 16, 475 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Davies, H. et al. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat. Med. 23, 517–525 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Alexandrov, L. B. et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 500, 415–421 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Behan, F. M. et al. Prioritization of cancer therapeutic targets using CRISPR-Cas9 screens. Nature 568, 511–516 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Chan, E. M. et al. WRN helicase is a synthetic lethal target in microsatellite unstable cancers. Nature 568, 551–556 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Kategaya, L., Perumal, S. K., Hager, J. H. & Belmont, L. D. Werner syndrome helicase is required for the survival of cancer cells with microsatellite instability. iScience 13, 488–497 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lieb, S. et al. Werner syndrome helicase is a selective vulnerability of microsatellite instability-high tumor cells. eLife 8, e43333 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Jenkins, R. W., Barbie, D. A. & Flaherty, K. T. Mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Br. J. Cancer 118, 9–16 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Sharma, P., Hu-Lieskovan, S., Wargo, J. A. & Ribas, A. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell 168, 707–723 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Le, D. T. et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357, 409–413 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Le, D. T. et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2509–2520 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Miao, D. et al. Genomic correlates of response to immune checkpoint blockade in microsatellite-stable solid tumors. Nat. Genet. 50, 1271–1281 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Muller, F. L. et al. Passenger deletions generate therapeutic vulnerabilities in cancer. Nature 488, 337–342 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Leonard, P. G. et al. SF2312 is a natural phosphonate inhibitor of enolase. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 1053–1058 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Kryukov, G. V. et al. MTAP deletion confers enhanced dependency on the PRMT5 arginine methyltransferase in cancer cells. Science 351, 1214–1218 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Mavrakis, K. J. et al. Disordered methionine metabolism in MTAP/CDKN2A-deleted cancers leads to dependence on PRMT5. Science 351, 1208–1213 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Marjon, K. et al. MTAP deletions in cancer create vulnerability to targeting of the MAT2A/PRMT5/RIOK1 axis. Cell Rep. 15, 574–587 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nijhawan, D. et al. Cancer vulnerabilities unveiled by genomic loss. Cell 150, 842–854 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Paolella, B. R. et al. Copy-number and gene dependency analysis reveals partial copy loss of wild-type SF3B1 as a novel cancer vulnerability. eLife 6, e23268 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Garraway, L. A. & Sellers, W. R. From integrated genomics to tumor lineage dependency. Cancer Res. 66, 2506–2508 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kenny, F. S. et al. Overexpression of cyclin D1 messenger RNA predicts for poor prognosis in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 5, 2069–2076 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Pernas, S., Tolaney, S. M., Winer, E. P. & Goel, S. CDK4/6 inhibition in breast cancer: current practice and future directions. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 10, 1758835918786451 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. O’Leary, B., Finn, R. S. & Turner, N. C. Treating cancer with selective CDK4/6 inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13, 417–430 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Lonergan, P. E. & Tindall, D. J. Androgen receptor signaling in prostate cancer development and progression. J. Carcinog. 10, 20 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Richardson, P. G. et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 2609–2617 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Dimopoulos, M. A. et al. Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 17, 27–38 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Zecchini, V. & Frezza, C. Metabolic synthetic lethality in cancer therapy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 1858, 723–731 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Pieters, R. et al. L-asparaginase treatment in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a focus on Erwinia asparaginase. Cancer 117, 238–249 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Gaillard, H., García-Muse, T. & Aguilera, A. Replication stress and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 276–289 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Sarosiek, K. A. & Letai, A. Directly targeting the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis for cancer therapy using BH3 mimetics - recent successes, current challenges and future promise. FEBS J. 283, 3523–3533 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Roberts, A. W. et al. Targeting BCL2 with venetoclax in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 311–322 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Kotschy, A. et al. The MCL1 inhibitor S63845 is tolerable and effective in diverse cancer models. Nature 538, 477–482 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Tron, A. E. et al. Discovery of Mcl-1-specific inhibitor AZD5991 and preclinical activity in multiple myeloma and acute myeloid leukemia. Nat. Commun. 9, 5341 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Caenepeel, S. et al. AMG 176, a selective MCL1 inhibitor, is effective in hematologic cancer models alone and in combination with established therapies. Cancer Discov. 8, 1582–1597 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Viswanathan, V. S. et al. Dependency of a therapy-resistant state of cancer cells on a lipid peroxidase pathway. Nature 547, 453–457 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Wang, C. et al. Inducing and exploiting vulnerabilities for the treatment of liver cancer. Nature 574, 268–272 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Tsherniak, A. et al. Defining a cancer dependency map. Cell 170, 564–576.e16 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 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.e10 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Cheung, H. W. et al. Systematic investigation of genetic vulnerabilities across cancer cell lines reveals lineage-specific dependencies in ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12372–12377 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Mendes-Pereira, A. M. et al. Genome-wide functional screen identifies a compendium of genes affecting sensitivity to tamoxifen. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2730–2735 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Iorns, E. et al. Identification of CDK10 as an important determinant of resistance to endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Cancer Cell 13, 91–104 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Berns, K. et al. A functional genetic approach identifies the PI3K pathway as a major determinant of trastuzumab resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell 12, 395–402 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Barrangou, R. et al. Advances in CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering: lessons learned from RNA interference. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, 3407–3419 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Jiang, F. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR-Cas9 Structures and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 46, 505–529 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Pickar-Oliver, A. & Gersbach, C. A. The next generation of CRISPR-Cas technologies and applications. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 490–507 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Findlay, G. M. et al. Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing. Nature 562, 217–222 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Gilbert, L. A. et al. CRISPR-mediated modular RNA-guided regulation of transcription in eukaryotes. Cell 154, 442–451 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Komor, A. C., Kim, Y. B., Packer, M. S., Zuris, J. A. & Liu, D. R. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature 533, 420–424 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Gaudelli, N. M. et al. Programmable base editing of A·T to G·C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 551, 464–471 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Anzalone, A. V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Evers, B. et al. CRISPR knockout screening outperforms shRNA and CRISPRi in identifying essential genes. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 631–633 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Morgens, D. W., Deans, R. M., Li, A. & Bassik, M. C. Systematic comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and RNAi screens for essential genes. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 634–636 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 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).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Koike-Yusa, H., Li, Y., Tan, E.-P., Velasco-Herrera, MdelC. & Yusa, K. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 267–273 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Hart, T. et al. High-Resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163, 1515–1526 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Wang, T. et al. Identification and characterization of essential genes in the human genome. Science 350, 1096–1101 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. 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).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Wang, T. et al. Gene essentiality profiling reveals gene networks and synthetic lethal interactions with oncogenic Ras. Cell 168, 890–903.e15 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Tzelepis, K. et al. A CRISPR dropout screen identifies genetic vulnerabilities and therapeutic targets in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell Rep. 17, 1193–1205 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Steinhart, Z. et al. Genome-wide CRISPR screens reveal a Wnt-FZD5 signaling circuit as a druggable vulnerability of RNF43-mutant pancreatic tumors. Nat. Med. 23, 60–68 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Han, K. et al. Synergistic drug combinations for cancer identified in a CRISPR screen for pairwise genetic interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 463–474 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Shen, J. P. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 screens for de novo mapping of genetic interactions. Nat. Methods 14, 573–576 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Horlbeck, M. A. et al. Mapping the genetic landscape of human cells. Cell 174, 953–967.e22 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Szlachta, K. et al. CRISPR knockout screening identifies combinatorial drug targets in pancreatic cancer and models cellular drug response. Nat. Commun. 9, 4275 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Nagarajan, S. et al. ARID1A influences HDAC1/BRD4 activity, intrinsic proliferative capacity and breast cancer treatment response. Nat. Genet. 52, 187–197 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Zimmermann, M. et al. CRISPR screens identify genomic ribonucleotides as a source of PARP-trapping lesions. Nature 559, 285–289 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Doench, J. G. et al. Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 184–191 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Allen, F. et al. JACKS: joint analysis of CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens. Genome Res. 29, 464–471 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Allen, F. et al. Predicting the mutations generated by repair of Cas9-induced double-strand breaks. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 64–72 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Kim, S., Kim, D., Cho, S. W., Kim, J. & Kim, J.-S. Highly efficient RNA-guided genome editing in human cells via delivery of purified Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Genome Res. 24, 1012–1019 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Patel, S. J. et al. Identification of essential genes for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 548, 537–542 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Pan, D. et al. A major chromatin regulator determines resistance of tumor cells to T cell-mediated killing. Science 359, 770–775 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Manguso, R. T. et al. In vivo CRISPR screening identifies Ptpn2 as a cancer immunotherapy target. Nature 547, 413–418 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Costanzo, M. et al. A global genetic interaction network maps a wiring diagram of cellular function. Science 353, aaf1420 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Zhao, D. et al. Combinatorial CRISPR-Cas9 metabolic screens reveal critical redox control points dependent on the KEAP1-NRF2 regulatory axis. Mol. Cell 69, 699–708.e7 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Norman, T. M. et al. Exploring genetic interaction manifolds constructed from rich single-cell phenotypes. Science 365, 786–793 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Sato, T. et al. Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature 459, 262–265 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Sato, T. et al. Long-term expansion of epithelial organoids from human colon, adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett’s epithelium. Gastroenterology 141, 1762–1772 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Liu, X. et al. ROCK inhibitor and feeder cells induce the conditional reprogramming of epithelial cells. Am. J. Pathol. 180, 599–607 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Liu, X. et al. Conditional reprogramming and long-term expansion of normal and tumor cells from human biospecimens. Nat. Protoc. 12, 439–451 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Tuveson, D. & Clevers, H. Cancer modeling meets human organoid technology. Science 364, 952–955 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Neal, J. T. et al. Organoid modeling of the tumor immune microenvironment. Cell 175, 1972–1988.e16 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Dijkstra, K. K. et al. Generation of tumor-reactive t cells by co-culture of peripheral blood lymphocytes and tumor organoids. Cell 174, 1586–1598.e12 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Subramanian, A. et al. A next generation connectivity map: L1000 platform and the first 1,000,000 profiles. Cell 171, 1437–1452.e17 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Dixit, A. et al. Perturb-Seq: dissecting molecular circuits with scalable single-cell RNA profiling of pooled genetic screens. Cell 167, 1853–1866.e17 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Adamson, B. et al. A multiplexed single-cell CRISPR screening platform enables systematic dissection of the unfolded protein response. Cell 167, 1867–1882.e21 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Datlinger, P. et al. Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat. Methods 14, 297–301 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. AACR Project GENIE Consortium. AACR Project GENIE: powering precision medicine through an international consortium. Cancer Discov. 7, 818–831 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  149. Friedman, A. A., Letai, A., Fisher, D. E. & Flaherty, K. T. Precision medicine for cancer with next-generation functional diagnostics. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 747–756 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Vamathevan, J. et al. Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 18, 463–477 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Verdine, G. L. & Walensky, L. D. The challenge of drugging undruggable targets in cancer: lessons learned from targeting BCL-2 family members. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 7264–7270 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Sakamoto, K. M. et al. Protacs: chimeric molecules that target proteins to the Skp1-Cullin-F box complex for ubiquitination and degradation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 8554–8559 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Carter, A. J. et al. Target 2035: probing the human proteome. Drug Discov. Today 24, 2111–2115 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Stone, R. M. et al. Midostaurin plus chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia with a FLT3 mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 454–464 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Perl, A. E. et al. Gilteritinib or chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1728–1740 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Stein, E. M. et al. Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 130, 722–731 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. DiNardo, C. D. et al. Durable remissions with ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 2386–2398 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Slamon, D. J. et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 783–792 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Baselga, J. et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 109–119 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Chan, A. et al. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 17, 367–377 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Litton, J. K. et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 753–763 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. André, F. et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1929–1940 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Talpaz, M. et al. Dasatinib in imatinib-resistant Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 2531–2541 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Kantarjian, H. M. et al. Nilotinib (formerly AMN107), a highly selective BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is effective in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase following imatinib resistance and intolerance. Blood 110, 3540–3546 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Khoury, H. J. et al. Bosutinib is active in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after imatinib and dasatinib and/or nilotinib therapy failure. Blood 119, 3403–3412 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Karapetis, C. S. et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1757–1765 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Cunningham, D. et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 337–345 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Douillard, J. Y. et al. Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 25, 1346–1355 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Berlin, J. et al. Panitumumab with irinotecan/leucovorin/5-fluorouracil for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 6, 427–432 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Overman, M. J. et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1182–1191 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Overman, M. J. et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 773–779 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Diamond, E. L. et al. Vemurafenib for BRAF V600-mutant Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans cell histiocytosis: analysis of data from the histology-independent, phase 2, open-label VE-BASKET study. JAMA Oncol. 4, 384–388 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Heinrich, M.C. et al. Clinical activity of avapritinib in ≥ fourth-line (4L+) and PDGFRA exon 18 gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 826 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  174. Hauschild, A. et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 380, 358–365 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Flaherty, K. T. et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 107–114 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Long, G. V. et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 1877–1888 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Larkin, J. et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 1867–1876 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Dummer, R. et al. Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 19, 1315–1327 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Doebele, R. C. et al. Entrectinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours: integrated analysis of three phase 1-2 trials. Lancet Oncol. 21, 271–282 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Fukuoka, M. et al. Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (The IDEAL 1 Trial) [corrected]. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 2237–2246 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Zhou, C. et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 12, 735–742 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Shepherd, F. A. et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 123–132 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Sequist, L. V. et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 3327–3334 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Wu, Y.-L. et al. Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1454–1466 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Shaw, A. T. et al. Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 12, 1004–1012 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Peters, S. et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 829–838 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Camidge, D. R. et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2027–2039 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Solomon, B. J. et al. Lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a global phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 19, 1654–1667 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Planchard, D. et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1307–1316 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Drilon, A. et al. Entrectinib in ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: integrated analysis of three phase 1-2 trials. Lancet Oncol. 21, 261–270 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Mirza, M. R. et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2154–2164 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Subbiah, V. et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 7–13 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Loriot, Y. et al. Erdafitinib in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 338–348 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Garnett laboratory and A. Bassett for suggestions. M.J.G.’s laboratory is supported by the Wellcome Trust (206194), SU2C (SU2CAACR-DT1213), The British Lung Foundation, Cancer Research UK (C44943/A22536) and Open Targets.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK

    Hayley E. Francies & Mathew J. Garnett

  2. Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK

    Ultan McDermott

Authors
  1. Hayley E. Francies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ultan McDermott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathew J. Garnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathew J. Garnett.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

U.M. is an employee of AstraZeneca, and M.J.G. received research funding from AstraZeneca.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Francies, H.E., McDermott, U. & Garnett, M.J. Genomics-guided pre-clinical development of cancer therapies. Nat Cancer 1, 482–492 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-020-0067-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-020-0067-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research