Back

Ultramutagenesis through combined Msh2 depletion and proofreading-deficient DNA polymerase ε expression enhances small molecule target identification in forward genetic screens

Nguyen, A.;Li, V.;Chen, W.;Kimberg, J.;Davis, A.;McFadden, D.;Povedano, J.

2026-06-29 Cancer Biology
10.64898/2026.06.26.734921 bioRxiv
Show abstract

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency has been widely utilized in forward genetic screens to identify drug resistance mutations and elucidate the mechanisms of action of cytotoxic small molecules. However, MMR deficiency generates a characteristic mutational signature enriched for C>T transitions that precludes saturation of mutagenesis. We hypothesized that expression of proofreading deficient DNA polymerase epsilon, as has been observed in patients with biallelic MMR deficiency, would enhance mutagenesis and enable identification of new resistance mutations and cytotoxin mechanisms. Here, we combine auxin-inducible degradation of Msh2 with doxycycline-inducible expression of the proofreading-deficient Pol{varepsilon}P286R mutant in murine small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cells. Simultaneous MMR deficiency and mutant Pol{varepsilon} expression markedly increased the emergence of bortezomib-resistant clones relative to either perturbation alone and targeted sequencing of Psmb5 in bortezomib-resistant clones identified recurrent mutations previously reported in chemical mutagenesis-based resistance screens. We next applied this platform to investigate resistance to lurbinectedin, a clinically relevant therapy for SCLC. Whole-exome sequencing revealed recurrent loss-of-function alterations in nucleotide excision repair (NER) genes, most notably Ercc5 and Ercc4, implicating NER deficiency as a major mechanism of lurbinectedin resistance and supporting a central role for NER in mediating lurbinectedin-induced cytotoxicity. Collectively, these findings establish inducible ultramutagenesis as a powerful and versatile platform for the unbiased discovery of drug resistance mechanisms and therapeutic vulnerabilities.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 8%
18.6%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.9%
3
Cell Chemical Biology
94 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 6%
7.3%
5
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.5%
6
Journal of Clinical Investigation
179 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.3%
8
Cancer Discovery
66 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
9
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.5%
10
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
11
EMBO Molecular Medicine
95 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
12
Science Signaling
65 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
Nature Cancer
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
14
Molecular Cell
350 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
15
Cancer Cell
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
18
Nature Genetics
286 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
19
ACS Chemical Biology
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Cell
431 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
24
Molecular Therapy
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
26
Journal of Experimental Medicine
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 78%
0.6%
28
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.6%