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
Is Your AI Conversation Privileged?
08 May 2026
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
#
Consulting
​
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
#
Consulting
​
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
#
Consulting
​
Meet the EIP team heading to INTA 2026 in London
23 April 2026
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
#
Litigation
​
Antibody Patent Protection in Europe and the US: Navigating EPO and USPTO Differences
16 April 2026
This article explores the complexities of patenting antibody therapies, focusing on the differing requirements and practices of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It highlights how the scope of claims, inventiveness standards, and supporting data requirements vary between jurisdictions, and explains why a tailored IP strategy is essential for innovators especially SMEs seeking protection in both Europe and the US. The article also outlines how EIP’s transatlantic teams collaborate to optimise patent applications for success in these key markets.
#
Patenting
​
Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy
15 April 2026
This article explains why competitor IP monitoring is a critical part of an effective drug development strategy. By tracking competitor patent activity, companies can assess freedom to operate, identify risks and opportunities early, and make informed decisions on patent filings, licensing, and investment readiness. Ongoing monitoring also supports FTO analysis, third‑party observations, oppositions, and litigation strategy, helping life sciences businesses protect value and reduce risk throughout development.
#
Consulting
​
Biopharma Strategy in 2026: Lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC
13 April 2026
This article looks back on a selection of key trends in the (bio)pharma industry in 2025 and looks ahead to how these may continue to develop into 2026.
#
Consulting
​
Thinking about IP from day one: strategic considerations for deep tech startups
08 April 2026
For deep tech startups, intellectual property decisions often come too late or cost too much too soon. This article explores why IP strategy should be considered from day one, even if formal protection comes later. It outlines how founders can decide what to patent, when trade secrets may be more appropriate, and how detectability, enforceability and cost should shape early choices. With a focus on practicality and commercial alignment, it also looks at how newer, AI‑assisted approaches can help startups take a more cost‑effective and flexible approach to building meaningful IP protection.
#
Consulting
​
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Make your bio(pharma) IP investment ready
22 March 2026
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
#
Patenting
​
Provisional Agreement Reached on the EU Pharma Package: Takeaways for Pharmaceutical Companies
17 February 2026
The EU’s new Pharma Package will overhaul regulatory exclusivity, orphan drug incentives, antimicrobial innovation, and generic entry pathways, reducing standard protection periods while introducing new rewards like transferable exclusivity vouchers.
#
Patenting
​
Beyond CRISPR: Precision to Platform
23 January 2026
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
#
Litigation
​
EPO fees are going up in April 2026: Plan ahead now
19 January 2026
The European Patent Office will introduce a fee increase of roughly 5% from 1 April 2026, affecting search, examination, designation and renewal fees. Filing, excess page, opposition and appeal fees remain unchanged. Some costs—such as renewal fees—can be paid up to three months early, allowing applicants to secure the current lower rates. EIP recommends reviewing your portfolio ahead of the deadline.
#
Patenting
​