Figure 1.
High-throughput drug screening approach identifies gilteritinib as a synergistic combination partner for venetoclax. (A) Experimental setup of the drug screening approach. A total of 31 high-risk AML patient samples were treated with venetoclax (0, 1, and 20 nM) with 64 different drugs in 5 different concentrations for 48 hours. Maximum concentrations used in the drug screen were 50% inhibitory concentrations found in literature; all other concentrations were deduced from division steps by 5. Viability was determined as a readout using CellTiter-Glo, and synergism scores (Bliss and zero interaction potency) were calculated using the synergyfinder R package (version 2.4.13).21 (B) Waterfall plot of mean Bliss scores of all drugs combined with venetoclax (calculated as the mean over all Bliss scores reached with each drug in 5 concentrations combined with venetoclax in 2 concentrations). Bliss synergy score was calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Colors indicate targets of the respective drugs. Waterfall plot is shown for all primary AML samples (n = 31). (C) RI reached by gilteritinib monotherapy (left) and maximum Bliss synergy scores for venetoclax-gilteritinib reached in all tested concentrations (right) in FLT3 ITD mutated (n = 10) or FLT3 wild-type (WT; n = 17) samples. RI scores were computed according to the area under the curve of the viability curves. The RI scores indicate the proportion of the maximum possible inhibition of each drug independent of a single concentration. Mean RI and mean maximum Bliss scores, respectively, of individual patient samples are shown. Colors indicate the FLT3 mutational status. Statistical significance was assessed using a 2-tailed Student unpaired t test. (D) Heat map depicting Bliss scores for venetoclax combined with different FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3 WT and FLT3-mutated patient samples. (E) Waterfall plot of mean Bliss scores of all drugs combined with venetoclax (calculated as the mean over all Bliss scores reached with each drug in 5 concentrations combined with venetoclax in 2 concentrations). Bliss synergy score was calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Colors indicate targets of the respective drugs. Waterfall plot is shown for the subgroup of patients with TP53 mutations obtained at first diagnosis (n = 6). (F) Bliss synergy scores of venetoclax in combination with gilteritinib, azacitidine, cytarabine, and daunorubicin, respectively, in a patient sample with TP53 mutation and FLT3 WT. Colors indicate synergism calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Synergy scores of ≥0 are regarded as synergistic. ∗P ≤ .05. ITD, internal tandem duplication.

High-throughput drug screening approach identifies gilteritinib as a synergistic combination partner for venetoclax. (A) Experimental setup of the drug screening approach. A total of 31 high-risk AML patient samples were treated with venetoclax (0, 1, and 20 nM) with 64 different drugs in 5 different concentrations for 48 hours. Maximum concentrations used in the drug screen were 50% inhibitory concentrations found in literature; all other concentrations were deduced from division steps by 5. Viability was determined as a readout using CellTiter-Glo, and synergism scores (Bliss and zero interaction potency) were calculated using the synergyfinder R package (version 2.4.13).21 (B) Waterfall plot of mean Bliss scores of all drugs combined with venetoclax (calculated as the mean over all Bliss scores reached with each drug in 5 concentrations combined with venetoclax in 2 concentrations). Bliss synergy score was calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Colors indicate targets of the respective drugs. Waterfall plot is shown for all primary AML samples (n = 31). (C) RI reached by gilteritinib monotherapy (left) and maximum Bliss synergy scores for venetoclax-gilteritinib reached in all tested concentrations (right) in FLT3 ITD mutated (n = 10) or FLT3 wild-type (WT; n = 17) samples. RI scores were computed according to the area under the curve of the viability curves. The RI scores indicate the proportion of the maximum possible inhibition of each drug independent of a single concentration. Mean RI and mean maximum Bliss scores, respectively, of individual patient samples are shown. Colors indicate the FLT3 mutational status. Statistical significance was assessed using a 2-tailed Student unpaired t test. (D) Heat map depicting Bliss scores for venetoclax combined with different FLT3 inhibitors in FLT3 WT and FLT3-mutated patient samples. (E) Waterfall plot of mean Bliss scores of all drugs combined with venetoclax (calculated as the mean over all Bliss scores reached with each drug in 5 concentrations combined with venetoclax in 2 concentrations). Bliss synergy score was calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Colors indicate targets of the respective drugs. Waterfall plot is shown for the subgroup of patients with TP53 mutations obtained at first diagnosis (n = 6). (F) Bliss synergy scores of venetoclax in combination with gilteritinib, azacitidine, cytarabine, and daunorubicin, respectively, in a patient sample with TP53 mutation and FLT3 WT. Colors indicate synergism calculated as described by Bliss et al.19 Synergy scores of ≥0 are regarded as synergistic. ∗P ≤ .05. ITD, internal tandem duplication.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal