tooluniverse-drug-synergy
Drug-combination synergy analysis — quantify whether two drugs together are synergistic, additive, or antagonistic using the standard reference models (Bliss independence, HSA / highest single agent, Loewe additivity, ZIP, and the Chou-Talalay Combination Index). Use when you have measured single-drug and combination effects (inhibition/viability) and need a synergy score. Explains which model to use, what data each one needs, and how to read the score. NOT for looking up pre-computed synergy in a database (use the SYNERGxDB tool / cell-line-profiling skill).
What this skill does
# Drug-Combination Synergy Analysis
Decide whether a two-drug combination does **more than expected** (synergy), exactly as expected (additivity), or **less** (antagonism) — and pick the right reference model for the data you have.
"Synergy" only means something relative to a **null model of additivity**, and the models define additivity differently — so the first decision is *which model*, driven by *what data you measured*.
## Step 0 — Pick the model by the data you have
| You measured… | Use model | Tool | Input |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single effects of A, B, and A+B at **one** dose pair | **Bliss** | `DrugSynergy_calculate_bliss` | `effect_a`, `effect_b`, `effect_combination` (each a fraction 0–1) |
| Effects of A, B, A+B across **several** dose points | **HSA** | `DrugSynergy_calculate_hsa` | `effects_a`, `effects_b`, `effects_combo` (arrays) |
| Single-agent **dose-response curves** + one combination point | **Loewe** | `DrugSynergy_calculate_loewe` | `doses_a_single`/`effects_a_single`, `doses_b_single`/`effects_b_single`, `dose_a_combo`, `dose_b_combo`, `effect_combo` |
| Single-agent dose-response + combo point, want Chou-Talalay CI | **Combination Index** | `DrugSynergy_calculate_ci` | same as Loewe + `assumption` |
| A full **dose × dose viability matrix** | **ZIP** | `DrugSynergy_calculate_zip` | `doses_a`, `doses_b`, `viability_matrix` (% , 0–100) |
> **Effects must be on a consistent inhibition scale.** Bliss/HSA/Loewe expect *fractional inhibition* `0–1` (0 = no effect, 1 = complete kill). If your data is % viability, convert: `inhibition = 1 − viability/100`. ZIP takes the viability matrix in % directly. Mixing scales is the most common error.
## Step 1 — What each model's "additivity" means
| Model | Null (additive) expectation | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| **Bliss independence** | drugs act independently: `E_exp = E_a + E_b − E_a·E_b` | different mechanisms; quick single-point screen |
| **HSA (highest single agent)** | combo should beat the *better* single agent: `E_exp = max(E_a, E_b)` | conservative "does it beat monotherapy?" question |
| **Loewe additivity** | a drug combined with itself = additive (dose equivalence) | same/similar mechanism; needs dose-response |
| **ZIP** | combines Bliss + Loewe; potency shift of one drug's curve by the other | dose-matrix screens (the SynergyFinder default) |
| **Chou-Talalay CI** | CI<1 synergy, =1 additive, >1 antagonism (median-effect) | classic isobologram-style analysis with dose-response |
There is no single "correct" model — **state which one you used.** Bliss and Loewe genuinely disagree for some combinations (that's expected, not an error); reporting two models (e.g. Bliss + HSA, or Loewe + ZIP) is good practice.
## Step 2 — Run it
```bash
# Bliss (single dose pair, fractional inhibition)
tu run DrugSynergy_calculate_bliss '{"operation":"calculate_bliss",
"effect_a":0.4,"effect_b":0.3,"effect_combination":0.7}'
# -> expected 0.58, bliss_synergy_score 0.12, "Strong synergy"
```
`scripts/synergy_reference.py` computes the Bliss, HSA, and Loewe-style expected combination effects side-by-side from one dose pair, so you can see at a glance whether the models agree before running the full tools.
## Step 3 — Interpret the score
For Bliss/HSA/Loewe/ZIP, the synergy score is `(observed − expected)` (often ×100):
| Score (fractional, ×100 scale) | Call |
|---|---|
| > +10 | synergy |
| −10 to +10 | additive (no meaningful interaction) |
| < −10 | antagonism |
For **Combination Index (Chou-Talalay)**: **CI < 1 = synergy**, CI = 1 additive, CI > 1 antagonism (note the opposite direction — lower is more synergistic).
- A positive Bliss/HSA score means the combination exceeds the additive expectation at that point.
- Synergy is often **dose-dependent** — a combination can be synergistic at one ratio and antagonistic at another; for a matrix, report the synergistic *region*, not one number.
## Step 4 — Gotchas (state these)
- **Scale mismatch** (% viability vs fractional inhibition) — convert first (Step 0).
- **Effects near 0 or 1 (ceiling).** If both single agents already kill ~everything, the combo can't show synergy (no headroom) — Bliss/HSA saturate; interpret with care.
- **ZIP/Loewe/CI need real dose-response** with ≥3 non-zero, measurable-effect dose points per drug, or the Hill fit fails (the tools say so).
- **Model disagreement is normal** — don't shop for the model that gives "synergy"; pre-specify the model and report it.
- **A synergy score is not efficacy** — a strongly synergistic combination can still be weak overall; report the absolute combination effect too.
## Honest limitations
- These are *reference-model* synergy scores, not statistical tests — for confidence, replicate and report variability across the dose matrix.
- Synergy in vitro does not guarantee clinical benefit (PK/PD, toxicity, scheduling all matter).
## Related skills
- `tooluniverse-dose-response` — fit the single-agent IC50/EC50 curves that Loewe/CI/ZIP need.
- `tooluniverse-cell-line-profiling` — look up *pre-computed* combination synergy (SYNERGxDB).
- `tooluniverse-drug-repurposing` / `tooluniverse-network-pharmacology` — rationale for combinations.
Related in AI Agents
skill-development
IncludedComprehensive meta-skill for creating, managing, validating, auditing, and distributing Claude Code skills and slash commands (unified in v2.1.3+). Provides skill templates, creation workflows, validation patterns, audit checklists, naming conventions, YAML frontmatter guidance, progressive disclosure examples, and best practices lookup. Use when creating new skills, validating existing skills, auditing skill quality, understanding skill architecture, needing skill templates, learning about YAML frontmatter requirements, progressive disclosure patterns, tool restrictions (allowed-tools), skill composition, skill naming conventions, troubleshooting skill activation issues, creating custom slash commands, configuring command frontmatter, using command arguments ($ARGUMENTS, $1, $2), bash execution in commands, file references in commands, command namespacing, plugin commands, MCP slash commands, Skill tool configuration, or deciding between skills vs slash commands. Delegates to docs-management skill for official documentation.
reprompter
IncludedTransform messy prompts into well-structured, effective prompts — single or multi-agent. Use when: "reprompt", "reprompt this", "clean up this prompt", "structure my prompt", rough text needing XML tags and best practices, "reprompter teams", "repromptception", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", multi-agent tasks, audits, parallel work, anything going to agent teams. Don't use when: simple Q&A, pure chat, immediate execution-only tasks. See "Don't Use When" section for details. Outputs: Structured XML/Markdown prompt, quality score (before/after), optional team brief + per-agent sub-prompts, agent team output files. Success criteria: Single mode quality score ≥ 7/10; Repromptception per-agent prompt quality score 8+/10; all required sections present, actionable and specific.
adaptive-compaction
IncludedAdaptive add-on policy and recovery layer that decides WHEN to compact, prune, snapshot, or fork -- replacing fixed-percent auto-compaction across Claude Code, Codex, and MCP-capable hosts. Trigger on auto-compact timing or damage: "when should I compact", "is it safe to compact now or start a fresh session", "auto-compact fires too early/mid-task", "switching to an unrelated task but the window still has space", "context rot", "answers get worse the longer the session runs", "the agent forgot the plan or my decisions after it summarized", "add a layer on top that manages context without changing the agent", raising autoCompactWindow to give the policy room, or installing/tuning a cross-tool compaction policy or PreCompact hook -- even when "compaction" is never said but the problem is context-window pressure or post-summarization memory loss. Do NOT use to summarize a conversation, build RAG, write a summarization prompt (decides WHEN not HOW), or answer max-context-length trivia.
agent-skill-creator
IncludedCreate cross-platform agent skills from workflow descriptions. Activates when users ask to create an agent, automate a repetitive workflow, create a custom skill, or need advanced agent creation. Triggers on phrases like create agent for, automate workflow, create skill for, every day I have to, daily I need to, turn process into agent, need to automate, create a cross-platform skill, validate this skill, export this skill, migrate this skill. Supports single skills, multi-agent suites, transcript processing, template-based creation, interactive configuration, cross-platform export, and spec validation.
llm-wiki
IncludedUse when building or maintaining a persistent personal knowledge base (second brain) in Obsidian where an LLM incrementally ingests sources, updates entity/concept pages, maintains cross-references, and keeps a synthesis current. Triggers include "second brain", "Obsidian wiki", "personal knowledge management", "ingest this paper/article/book", "build a research wiki", "compound knowledge", "Memex", or whenever the user wants knowledge to accumulate across sessions instead of being re-derived by RAG on every query.
skill-master
IncludedAgent Skills authoring, evaluation, and optimization. Create, edit, validate, benchmark, and improve skills following the agentskills.io specification. Use when designing SKILL.md files, structuring skill folders (references, scripts, assets), ingesting external documentation into skills, running trigger evals, benchmarking skill quality, optimizing descriptions, or performing blind A/B comparisons. Keywords: agentskills.io, SKILL.md, skill authoring, eval, benchmark, trigger optimization.