An atlas for drug interactions: Kinase inhibitors are an important class of drugs that block certain enzymes involved in diseases such as cancer and inflammatory disorders. There are hundreds of kinases within the human body, so knowing the kinase “target” of each drug is essential for developing successful treatment strategies. Sometimes clinical trials can fail because drugs bind more than one target. Yet sometimes off-target effects can be beneficial, and drugs can be repurposed for treatment of additional diseases. Klaegeret al.performed a comprehensive analysis of 243 kinase inhibitors that are either approved for use or in clinical trials. They provide an open-access resource of target summaries that could help researchers develop better drugs, understand how existing drugs work, and design more effective clinical trials.Science, this issue p.eaan4368

Background: DNA epigenetic modifications, such as methylation, are important regulators of tissue differentiation, contributing to processes of both development and cancer. Profiling the tissue-specific DNA methylome patterns will provide novel insights into normal and pathogenic mechanisms, as well as help in future epigenetic therapies. In this study, 17 somatic tissues from four autopsied humans were subjected to functional genome analysis using the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip, covering 486 428 CpG sites. Results: Only 2% of the CpGs analyzed are hypermethylated in all 17 tissue specimens; these permanently methylated CpG sites are located predominantly in gene-body regions. In contrast, 15% of the CpGs are hypomethylated in all specimens and are primarily located in regions proximal to transcription start sites. A vast number of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions are identified and considered likely mediators of tissue-specific gene regulatory mechanisms since the hypomethylated regions are closely related to known functions of the corresponding tissue. Finally, a clear inverse correlation is observed between promoter methylation within CpG islands and gene expression data obtained from publicly available databases. Conclusions: This genome-wide methylation profiling study identified tissue-specific differentially methylated regions in 17 human somatic tissues. Many of the genes corresponding to these differentially methylated regions contribute to tissue-specific functions. Future studies may use these data as a reference to identify markers of perturbed differentiation and disease-related pathogenic mechanisms.

Despite of intense research in early cancer detection, there is a lack of biomarkers for the reliable detection of malignant tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DNA methylation changes are common and relatively stable in various types of cancers, and may be used as diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers. We performed DNA methylation profiling of samples from 48 patients with stage I NSCLC and 18 matching cancer-free lung samples using microarrays that cover the promoter regions of more than 14,500 genes. We correlated DNA methylation changes with gene expression levels and performed survival analysis. We observed hypermethylation of 496 CpGs in 379 genes and hypomethylation of 373 CpGs in 335 genes in NSCLC. Compared to adenocarcinoma samples, squamous cell carcinoma samples had 263 CpGs in 223 hypermethylated genes and 513 CpGs in 436 hypomethylated genes. 378 of 869 (43.5%) CpG sites discriminating the NSCLC and control samples showed an inverse correlation between CpG site methylation and gene expression levels. As a result of a survival analysis, we found 10 CpGs in 10 genes, in which the methylation level differs in different survival groups. We have identified a set of genes with altered methylation in NSCLC and found that a minority of them showed an inverse correlation with gene expression levels. We also found a set of genes that associated with the survival of the patients. These newly-identified marker candidates for the molecular screening of NSCLC will need further analysis in order to determine their clinical utility.

Published genetic risk scores for breast cancer (BC) so far have been based on a relatively small number of markers and are not necessarily using the full potential of large-scale Genome-Wide Association Studies. This study aimed to identify an efficient polygenic predictor for BC based on best available evidence and to assess its potential for personalized risk prediction and screening strategies. Four different genetic risk scores (two already published and two newly developed) and their combinations (metaGRS) were compared in the subsets of two population-based biobank cohorts: the UK Biobank (UKBB, 3157 BC cases, 43,827 controls) and Estonian Biobank (EstBB, 317 prevalent and 308 incident BC cases in 32,557 women). In addition, correlations between different genetic risk scores and their associations with BC risk factors were studied in both cohorts. The metaGRS that combines two genetic risk scores (metaGRS2 - based on 75 and 898 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, respectively) had the strongest association with prevalent BC status in both cohorts. One standard deviation difference in the metaGRS2 corresponded to an Odds Ratio = 1.6 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.66, p = 9.7*10− 135) in the UK Biobank and accounting for family history marginally attenuated the effect (Odds Ratio = 1.58, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.64, p = 7.8*10− 129). In the EstBB cohort, the hazard ratio of incident BC for the women in the top 5% of the metaGRS2 compared to women in the lowest 50% was 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, p = 8.1*10− 13). The different GRSs were only moderately correlated with each other and were associated with different known predictors of BC. The classification of genetic risk for the same individual varied considerably depending on the chosen GRS. We have shown that metaGRS2, that combined on the effects of more than 900 SNPs, provided best predictive ability for breast cancer in two different population-based cohorts. The strength of the effect of metaGRS2 indicates that the GRS could potentially be used to develop more efficient strategies for breast cancer screening for genotyped women.

Background/Objectives: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been extensively studied and are increasingly applied in healthcare. One of the most studied and developed areas is predictive medicine for breast cancer, but there is no wider consensus on the indications for the clinical use of PRSs for breast cancer. This current guidance endeavours to articulate the scientific evidence underpinning the clinical utility of PRSs in stratifying breast cancer risk, with a particular emphasis on clinical application. Methods: This guidance has been prepared by a group of experts who have been active in breast cancer PRS research and development, combining a review of the evidence base with expert opinion for indications for clinical use. Results: Based on data from various studies and existing breast cancer prevention and screening services, the indications for clinical use of breast cancer PRSs can be divided into the following scenarios: (1) Management of cancer-free women with a family history of cancer; (2) individual personalised breast cancer prevention and screening in healthcare services; and (3) breast cancer screening programs for more personalised screening. Conclusions: The integration of PRSs into clinical practice enables healthcare providers to deliver more accurate risk assessments, personalised prevention strategies, and optimised screening programmes, thereby improving patient outcomes and enhancing the effectiveness of breast cancer care. PRS testing represents a novel component in clinical breast cancer risk assessment, supporting a personalised, risk-based approach to breast cancer prevention and screening.