Oncofusion

start / graph / ana-age-restricted-vulnerability-panel

Analysisunrated confidence 0 of 5: unrated

Every age-restricted target nominated by the model is pan-essential or invisible

also called PLK1 AURKA MAT2A FFAR2 panel

We checked the four targets this literature nominates against a large cell-line dependency dataset. Three are needed by almost every cell alive and the fourth shows nothing, which does not disprove the claims but does say where they rest.

The same thing, for a scientist

PLK1 −2.754 pan-cancer with **99.9%** of lines depleted; AURKA −1.210 / 99.4%; MAT2A −1.349 / 95.0%; PRMT5 −1.197 / 94.9% — all floor-compressed, all with KMT2A-selectivity differences inside the uninterpretable range, and PLK1's is POSITIVE in both lineage halves. FFAR2 is flat (3.6% depleted), as a proposed tumour suppressor should be. The contrast is MEN1 at d −0.853 myeloid and −0.872 lymphoid, and DOT1L, not floor-compressed at 12.1%, at −0.176 and −0.311.

Go deeper
What a null here is worth

DepMap has no infant-derived lines and no age axis, so it cannot test an age-restricted claim. That is the first thing to say and it is a real limit, not a hedge.

What the panel does establish is narrower and still useful: these targets have no independent cell-line support, so the therapeutic case rests entirely on one laboratory's model system. And for PLK1, AURKA and MAT2A the screen answers a different question well — the toxicity question — and answers it unfavourably. A gene required by 99.9% of lines is a cytotoxic target whatever differential sensitivity a model shows.

Every source behind this entry (2)
  1. E1established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.analysis

    Line-normalised, lineage-split DepMap across 7 myeloid and 4 lymphoid KMT2A-rearranged lines against 43 other leukaemia lines: PLK1 pan-cancer −2.754 with 99.9% of lines depleted and index differences of +0.262 / +0.134; AURKA −1.210 / 99.4% and +0.125 / −0.196; MAT2A −1.349 / 95.0% and −0.158 / −0.014; FFAR2 −0.218 / 3.6% and +0.028 / −0.175. MEN1 in the same run gives −0.853 / −0.872 and DOT1L, at 12.1% depleted, gives −0.176 / −0.311.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Eleven index lines, four of them lymphoid. No significance testing; at this floor none would be meaningful.

    Evidence that argues against this (2)
    • DepMap contains no infant-derived lines and no age axis, so it cannot test an age-restricted claim. A flat result there does not refute one; it records that the therapeutic case rests on one laboratory's model system with no independent cell-line support. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024
    • Floor compression cuts both ways as an argument. It correctly stops anyone reading these nulls as refutations, and it equally stops the panel from confirming anything: a real KMT2A-selective requirement for PLK1 would also be invisible at 99.9% depletion. The panel bounds the evidence available, not the biology. Oncofusion knowledge graph (internal analysis) 2026
  2. E2established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.analysis

    The panel was assembled from four papers by one laboratory that `ana-literature-recall` identified as thinly read — many papers in the 2020-2026 window and one citation in the graph — and none of PLK1, AURKA, MAT2A or FFAR2 had an entry anywhere in the graph's 792 before this cycle.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Checked by id search across all node files on 2026-09-22.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Absence from the graph is not evidence the targets were overlooked rather than judged off-beat. The project records bounded absences and does not record bounded rejections, so a gap and a decision look identical from here — a limitation the recall audit already flagged and nobody has fixed. Oncofusion knowledge graph (internal analysis) 2026
Connected to