Investment lessons · WRN

The $400M algorithm mistake

More than $400M went into WRN inhibitors, with minimal benefit for patients. Gordion’s analysis of patient data found a type of WRN mutation that commonly used algorithms miss, showing that WRN is not essential for cancer cell survival. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The WRN helicase · by Pawel Zawadzki, PhD

$400M+
Invested by multiple companies
The case

A costly failure

Despite massive investment from multiple companies, clinical trials for WRN inhibitors have repeatedly shown minimal benefits for cancer patients.

This outcome highlights a stark disconnect between strong data from preclinical models and the complex reality of patient responses.

Patient data

What the patient data revealed

Deep, AI-augmented analysis of patient data uncovered an error produced by a commonly used algorithm:

  • A previously undetected type of WRN mutation was identified by Gordion technology.
  • This mutation proved that WRN is not essential for cancer cell survival, hence a poor drug target. Actually, it appears WRN is rather a tumor suppressor!
  • This single, patient data-derived finding directly explained the widespread failure of the clinical trials of WRN inhibitors.

Mutations inactivating both copies of a gene

Bi-allelic gene losses for TP53 and WRN detected by Gordion vs publicly available algorithms
Figure 1. Bi-allelic gene losses detected by GordionAI vs publicly available algorithms. For TP53, both the publicly available and the Gordion algorithm detected the same number of mutations. However, the commonly used algorithm was blind to mutations affecting WRN.
The take-home message

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Take-home 01

The flawed assumption

Publicly available algorithms failed to detect the key mutation type. Investment teams mistakenly concluded WRN was an attractive target because the invalidating evidence was "absent."

Take-home 02

AI warning

This is a critical lesson for all AI users: the origins of AI-generated insights can be unclear. However, even a greater challenge is assessing what your models might be overlooking.

Recommendations

Consult patient data for reliable outcomes

01

Be skeptical about computational tools, as each has its own limitations.

A proper AI stack can eliminate these problems.

02

Target selection is still oncology’s biggest single-point failure.

Patient data and well-designed AI are the only reliable way to know which targets truly matter.

03

But do not delay AI adoption, as others will outcompete you.

Select your AI partner wisely, as this will define your future.

Medicines intended to work in patients should be developed with patient data in mind.