Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology

No items found.
​
May 26, 2026

What is Synthetic Lethality?

Synthetic lethality (SL) describes an interaction between genes where the combined disruption of two genes results in cell death, but the disruption of either gene alone allows cell survival. Calvin Bridges discovered this phenomenon in fruit flies over 100 years ago. It has since been hailed as a promising treatment strategy in precision oncology, where targeting an SL partner gene in tumours with a specific mutation selectively kills cancer cells while sparing healthy cells.

Conventional targeted anti-cancer therapies tend to focus on direct mutation targeting and the inhibition of a specific oncogene; a mutant gene that can cause cancer. However, many tumours do not have targetable oncogenes, especially those with loss-of-function mutations, where a protein product no longer performs its normal function. Therefore, a significant proportion of cancer patients do not currently have access to appropriate targeted therapies. SL treatment strategies encourage mutation indirect targeting by considering gene interactions and thus provide an expanded spectrum of targets.

Mutations in BRCA1/2 genes are common in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. PARP inhibitors, such as olaparib and rucaparib, have been used to treat BRCA1/2-mutated cancers and were the first clinically approved drugs designed to exploit SL. The PARP enzymes repair single-stranded DNA breaks, while BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumour suppressor genes that repair double-stranded DNA breaks, through homologous recombination. BRCA1/2 mutations impair homologous recombination and cells then become more dependent on PARP-mediated repair. Inhibiting PARP causes DNA damage to accumulate, which BRCA1/2-deficient cells cannot repair, leading to the selective death of BRCA1/2-mutated cancer cells.

Despite the initial success of PARP inhibitors, there are still very few SL-based drugs clinically available. Reasons for this include a high proportion of patients treated with PARP inhibitors developing drug resistance, with tumour cells adapting through different pathways to counter the inhibition. Most importantly, there has also been a lack of effective techniques to accurately identify new clinically relevant SL gene pairs.

Emerging technologies and the use of Machine Learning

Following the initial success of PARP inhibitors, experimental methods such as yeast screens were used to identify SL targets. This led to the use of higher throughput human cell methods such as drug screens, RNAi screens, and CRISPR/CAS9 screens to identify gene pairs with SL relationships. However, with over 200 million gene pair combinations, genetic context considerations, and epigenetic modifications, screening all the potential SL pairs by wet-lab methods was impractical. Despite this, the results from these experiments remain a key resource for SL prediction and there are large databases that compile these gene-gene interactions.  

The Cancer Dependency Map project (DepMap) is currently the largest database for human cancer cell lines and uses data from multiple large-scale projects such as the Broad Institute’s Project Achilles [1]. Advancements in Machine Learning have led to the development of algorithms that use such large databases for SL prediction. Within Machine Learning, Deep Learning methods present a way of capturing non-linear relationships between inputs and outputs by leveraging multilayered architectures to build networks that simulate cellular systems, enabling the identification of more complex SL gene interactions.

Currently, most Deep Learning methods for SL predictions are based on supervised learning, where models are trained on high-quality labelled data to identify patterns. These data include both gene pairs known to have an SL relationship and those that do not exhibit an SL relationship, known as positive and negative-labelled data, respectively. Negative SL pairs are often difficult to prove by screening methods due to the complex interactions between genes. Moreover, the “black box” nature of Deep Learning models makes it difficult to explain the output SL predictions, meaning they may be overlooked by biologists, hindering the translational applications of these data.

Recent strategies designed to overcome these challenges include NSF4SL (Negative Sampling Free for SL) [2]. This is a prediction model based on contrastive learning that avoids the use of negative samples. It captures the characteristics of positive SL samples by using two parallel neural networks that interact with each other to learn the patterns of positive SL genes. Most importantly, the SL gene candidates are then ranked rather than assigned to a binary yes or no classification. This method can accelerate precision oncology as it allows researchers to streamline their work and focus on potential hits.

The interpretability of outputs can be improved by knowledge and data dual-driven Artificial Intelligence (AI) frameworks for SL prediction, such as KDDSL [3]. Unlike traditional “black box” models, dual-data driven methods integrate biological knowledge with gene expression data to identify SL candidates, enhancing both the predictive accuracy and interpretability of results. Such frameworks enable a bidirectional workflow, where findings from wet-lab experiments refine computational models and the model-generated predictions guide subsequent wet-lab investigations.

While recent advances show promise, several challenges remain. Deep Learning approaches are still highly dependent on the availability and quality of prior biological knowledge and large datasets, which can often be incomplete, non-standardised, or disease specific. Models with improved interpretability can still be highly complex and translating SL predictions into clinical applications is resource-intensive, often incurring lengthy timelines.

The future of Synthetic Lethality

Investment in synthetic lethality is expanding and is projected to grow over the next decade. There have been several major strategic deals in the SL sector of precision oncology, notably a deal reportedly valued at over €500 million between Boehringer Ingelheim and Tessellate BIO, announced in 2025. This partnership aims to develop targeted treatments for ALT-positive tumours, which represent 10-15% of all cancers. Tessellate Bio has developed inhibitors to target SL partner genes of ALT, including a method that reduces FANCM expression, for which a related European patent application (EP 20754058.4) has been filed.

There have been over 1,200 clinical trials involving SL-based interactions, encompassing both monotherapies and combination treatments. While the most established class of SL drugs remains PARP inhibitors, the field has extended into targeting new pathways such as metabolic vulnerabilities and novel DNA damage response targets. Advances are also likely to be made in identifying responder and non-responder patient cohorts more accurately, which can have a transformative effect on clinical trial design. With investments on the rise and a high number of ongoing clinical trials, IP will play a key role in protecting and developing pipelines for SL treatments and related advancements.

Recent growth in SL treatment filings include those that target BRCA1/2-mutant cancers, such as POLΘ inhibitors, as well as expansion beyond this to target new SL pathways, such as PRMT5 inhibitors that target MTAP-deleted cancers and WRN inhibitors that target microsatellite instability and/or defective DNA mismatch repair.

AI/ML-driven drug discovery platforms are increasingly used to identify SL interactions and therapeutic targets, raising questions around inventorship and ownership. In most jurisdictions, including the EPO and the USPTO, AI/ML systems cannot currently be named as inventors. As a result, human inventors must be identified even where AI plays a significant role in generating the invention. This is likely to create uncertainty in a scenario where models can autonomously generate candidates without human guidance through tightly defining guardrails.

Synthetic Lethality is transitioning from a promising biological concept to a viable treatment strategy in precision oncology, driven by expanding clinical pipelines, technological innovation, and growing investment in the sector. The progression of SL as a viable treatment strategy will be dependent on the integration of discovery approaches with translational applications and the navigation of a complex but promising IP landscape.

Author - Daniel Allen (Patent Assistant)

‍

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

What should you look to protect in a (bio)pharma IP strategy?
November 18, 2025
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
Quantum IP Strategy: Own control Points, Not Patent Counts
14 October 2026
In quantum, the strongest portfolios will not be the biggest. Stuart Malcolm sets out six moves for owning the control points the market cannot route around, and the questions investors will ask.
#
Consulting
​
Targeted, Not Transformative: The UKIPO’s Considered Course on SEPs
13 October 2026
Andrew Sharples analyses the UKIPO's response to its SEP consultation, exploring proposed changes to FRAND dispute resolution, SEP transparency and licensing guidance, and what they mean for SEP holders and implementers.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese Companies in European Patent Litigation
30 September 2026
Chinese companies are becoming increasingly active in European patent litigation, both as defendants and as patent owners enforcing their own rights. This article examines the growing role of Europe and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in global patent disputes, highlighting key cases involving Chinese businesses and the strategic opportunities and risks that come with operating in European markets. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications of European patent enforcement for Chinese companies.
#
Patenting
​
How to mitigate prior art traps for follow-on pharma patents
27 August 2026
Follow-on patents are increasingly important for pharmaceutical innovators. Learn how new EMA clinical trial disclosure rules create prior art risks and discover practical strategies to protect pharmaceutical IP and maximise patent value.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users
13 August 2026
Chinese companies are playing an increasingly significant role in UPC litigation, accounting for around 38% of infringement actions in 2025. While many remain defendants, a growing number are actively using the Unified Patent Court to enforce their own patent rights across Europe. The trend highlights the UPC's rising importance for Chinese businesses operating in sectors such as telecommunications, semiconductors, medical devices and renewable energy, and signals a shift in global patent enforcement strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.
31 July 2026
AI's environmental impact is rarely out of the headlines, but how does it compare to the benefits it delivers in practice? In this article, Laurence Brown examines the energy use of AI-assisted patent drafting, comparing it with traditional drafting workflows. While measuring AI's true environmental footprint is far from straightforward, the analysis suggests that AI-assisted patent drafting may already be more energy efficient, while delivering significant productivity gains for patent professionals.
#
Patenting
​
UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
#
Litigation
​
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
#
Litigation
​
Podcast: Building an AI-Native Law Firm
26 June 2026
On the Technically Legal podcast, EIP partner Laurence Brown discusses how Visser AI is redesigning patent workflows, letting the firm offer fixed fees without trading away speed or quality.
#
Patenting
​
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
#
Litigation
​
Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology
26 May 2026
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
#
Consulting
​
Inside the Visser AI Launch Party
20 May 2026
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
#
Consulting
​
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
#
Consulting
​
Technology, Patents, and Sport
13 May 2026
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
#
Patenting
​
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
#
Patenting
​