A metric and workflow for quality control in the analysis of heterogeneity in phenotypic profiles and screens

Methods

Volumn 96, Issue , 2016, Pages 12-26

  Gough, Albert ^a,b   Shun, Tong Ying ^a   Lansing Taylor, D ^a,b   Schurdak, Mark ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug discovery; Heterogeneity; High content screening; Phenotypic profiling; Systems biology

Indexed keywords

INTERLEUKIN 6; IL6 PROTEIN, HUMAN; STAT3 PROTEIN; STAT3 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CELLULAR PARAMETERS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOMETRY; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HEAD AND NECK SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MICROSCOPY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA CELL LINE; WORKFLOW; DECISION TREE; DRUG EFFECTS; EPITHELIUM CELL; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TUMOR CELL LINE; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

CELL LINE, TUMOR; DECISION TREES; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FLOW CYTOMETRY; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, NEOPLASTIC; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; INTERLEUKIN-6; MICROSCOPY; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PHENOTYPE; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STAT3 TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84958162477     PISSN: 10462023     EISSN: 10959130     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.10.007     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Giuliano K.A., Haskins J.R., Taylor D.L. Advances in high content screening for drug discovery. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 2003, 1(4):565-577.
2. A. Gough, et al., High-content analysis with cellular and tissue systems biology: a bridge between cancer cell biology and tissue-based diagnostics, in: J. Mendelsohn et al. (Eds.), The Molecular Basis of Cancer, Saunders/Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 369-392, 2015.
3. Balluff B., et al. De novo discovery of phenotypic intratumour heterogeneity using imaging mass spectrometry. J. Pathol. 2015, 235(1):3-13.
4. Black C.B., et al. Cell-based screening using high-throughput flow cytometry. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 2011, 9(1):13-20.
5. Spiller D.G., et al. Measurement of single-cell dynamics. Nature 2010, 465(7299):736-745.
6. Liberali P., Snijder B., Pelkmans L. Single-cell and multivariate approaches in genetic perturbation screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16(1):18-32.
7. Huang S. Non-genetic heterogeneity of cells in development: more than just noise. Development 2009, 136(23):3853-3862.
8. Snijder B., Pelkmans L. Origins of regulated cell-to-cell variability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2011, 12(2):119-125.
9. Altschuler S.J., Wu L.F. Cellular heterogeneity: when do differences make a difference?. Cell 2010, 141(4):559-563.
10. Tawfik D.S. Messy biology and the origins of evolutionary innovations. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6(10):692-696.
11. Meacham C.E., Morrison S.J. Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Nature 2013, 501(7467):328-337.
12. Steininger R.J., et al. On comparing heterogeneity across biomarkers. Cytometry Part A 2015, 87(6):558-567.
13. Singh D.K., et al. Patterns of basal signaling heterogeneity can distinguish cellular populations with different drug sensitivities. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2010, 6:369.
14. Gough A.H., et al. Identifying and quantifying heterogeneity in high content analysis: application of heterogeneity indices to drug discovery. PLoS One 2014, 9(7):e102678.
15. Zhao B., et al. Addressing genetic tumor heterogeneity through computationally predictive combination therapy. Cancer Disc. 2014, 4(2):166-174.
16. Cahan P., Daley G.Q. Origins and implications of pluripotent stem cell variability and heterogeneity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14(6):357-368.
17. Chang H.H., et al. Transcriptome-wide noise controls lineage choice in mammalian progenitor cells. Nature 2008, 453(7194):544-547.
18. Loo L.H., et al. Heterogeneity in the physiological states and pharmacological responses of differentiating 3T3-L1 preadipocytes. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 187(3):375-384.
19. Huang S., Ingber D.E. A non-genetic basis for cancer progression and metastasis: self-organizing attractors in cell regulatory networks. Breast Dis. 2006, 26:27-54.
20. W. Buchser, et al., Assay development guidelines for image-based high content screening, high content analysis and high content imaging, in: G.S. Sittampalam et al., (Eds.), Assay Guidance Manual [Internet], October 1 [Updated 2014 Sep 22], Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Bethesda (MD), 2012 <>. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100913/.
21. M. Bray, A. Carpenter, Advanced assay development guidelines for image-based high content screening and analysis, in: G.S. Sittampalam et al., (Eds.), Assay Guidance Manual [Internet], November 16 [Updated 2013 May 1], Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Bethesda (MD), 2012 <>. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126174/.
22. Zhang J.-H., Chung T.D.Y., Oldenburg K.R. A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J. Biomol. Screen. 1999, 4(2):67-73.
23. Polyak K. Tumor heterogeneity confounds and illuminates: a case for darwinian tumor evolution. Nat. Med. 2014, 20(4):344-346.
24. Kleppe M., Levine R.L. Tumor heterogeneity confounds and illuminates: assessing the implications. Nat. Med. 2014, 20(4):342-344.
25. Koike-Yusa H., et al. Genome-wide recessive genetic screening in mammalian cells with a lentiviral CRISPR-guide RNA library. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32(3):267-273.
26. G.S. Sittampalam, et al., Assay Guidance Manual [Internet], Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences: Bethesda (MD), 2004 <>. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53196/.
27. Zhang X.D. A pair of new statistical parameters for quality control in RNA interference high-throughput screening assays. Genomics 2007, 89(4):552-561.
28. Ravkin I., et al. Multiplexed high-throughput image cytometry using encoded carriers. Proc. SPIE 2004, 5322:52-63.
29. Bray M.-A., et al. Workflow and metrics for image quality control in large-scale high-content screens. J. Biomol. Screen. 2012, 17(2):266-274.
30. Stack R.F., et al. Quality assurance testing for modern optical imaging systems. Microsc. Microanal. 2011, 17(4):598-606.
31. Grunwald D., et al. Calibrating excitation light fluxes for quantitative light microscopy in cell biology. Nat. Protoc. 2008, 3(11):1809-1814.
32. R.A. Hoffman, Standardization, calibration, and control in flow cytometry, Curr. Protoc. Cytom., 2005 (Chapter 1, Unit 1 3).
33. Loo L.H., et al. An approach for extensibly profiling the molecular states of cellular subpopulations. Nat. Meth. 2009, 6(10):759-765.
34. Potts S.J., et al. Evaluating tumor heterogeneity in immunohistochemistry-stained breast cancer tissue. Lab. Invest. 2012, 92(9):1342-1357.
35. Schwarz R.F., et al. Phylogenetic quantification of intra-tumour heterogeneity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10(4):e1003535.
36. Heindl A., Nawaz S., Yuan Y. Mapping spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment: a new era for digital pathology. Lab. Invest. 2015, 95(4):377-384.
37. Gioanni J., et al. Two new human tumor cell lines derived from squamous cell carcinomas of the tongue: establishment, characterization and response to cytotoxic treatment. Eur. J. Cancer Clin. Oncol. 1988, 24(9):1445-1455.
38. Bauer V.L., et al. Establishment and molecular cytogenetic characterization of a cell culture model of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Genes (Basel) 2010, 1(3):388-412.
39. Young I.T. Proof without prejudice. Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1977, 25(7):935-941.
40. Giuliano K.A., Chen Y.-T., Taylor D.L. High-content screening with siRNA optimizes a cell biological approach to drug discovery: defining the role of P53 activation in the cellular response to anticancer drugs. J. Biomol. Screen. 2004, 9(7):557-568.
41. Perlman Z.E., et al. Multidimensional drug profiling by automated microscopy. Science 2004, 306(5699):1194-1198.
42. Huang S. Statistical issues in subpopulation analysis of high content imaging data. J. Comput. Biol. 2010, 17(7):879-894.
43. Ng A.Y., et al. A cell profiling framework for modeling drug responses from HCS imaging. J. Biomol. Screen. 2010, 15(7):858-868.
44. Haney S.A. Rapid Assessment and Visualization of Normality in High-Content and Other Cell-Level Data and its Impact on the Interpretation of Experimental Results. J. Biomol. Screen. 2014.
45. Rao C.R. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients - a unified approach. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 1982, 21(1):24-43.
46. Schleuter D., et al. A user's guide to functional diversity indices. Ecol. Monogr. 2010, 80(3):15.
47. Lilliefors H.W. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 1967, 62(318):399-402.
48. Garraway L.A., Janne P.A. Circumventing cancer drug resistance in the era of personalized medicine. Cancer Disc. 2012, 2(3):214-226.
49. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, 2015, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria <>. http://www.R-project.org/.
50. G.J. Williams, SpringerLink (Online service), Data mining with Rattle and R the art of excavating data for knowledge discovery, in: Use R! 2011, Springer, New York (p. 1 online resource xx, 374 p.).
51. Singh S., et al. Pipeline for illumination correction of images for high-throughput microscopy. J. Microsc. 2014, 256(3):231-236.
52. Zwier J.M., et al. Quantitative image correction and calibration for confocal fluorescence microscopy using thin reference layers and SIPchart-based calibration procedures. J. Microsc. 2008, 231(Pt 1):59-69.
53. Giuliano K.A., et al. Systems cell biology knowledge created from high content screening. ASSAY Drug Develop. Technol. 2005, 3(5):501-514.
54. Rice S.D., et al. Analysis of chemotherapeutic response heterogeneity and drug clustering based on mechanism of action using an in vitro assay. Antican. Res. 2010, 30(7):2805-2811.
55. Irizarry R.A., et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 2003, 4(2):249-264.
56. Marusyk A., Almendro V., Polyak K. Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer?. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12(5):323-334.
57. Pelkmans L. Cell biology. Using cell-to-cell variability-a new era in molecular biology. Science 2012, 336(6080):425-426.
58. Farkash-Amar S., et al. Noise genetics: inferring protein function by correlating phenotype with protein levels and localization in individual human cells. PLoS Genet. 2014, 10(3):e1004176.
59. Wang Y., et al. Identifying network motifs that buffer front-to-back signaling in polarized neutrophils. Cell Rep. 2013, 3(5):1607-1616.
60. Gascoigne K.E., Taylor S.S. Cancer cells display profound intra- and interline variation following prolonged exposure to antimitotic drugs. Cancer Cell 2008, 14(2):111-122.
61. Sisan D.R., et al. Predicting rates of cell state change caused by stochastic fluctuations using a data-driven landscape model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109(47):19262-19267.
62. Chen F., et al. New horizons in tumor microenvironment biology: challenges and opportunities. BMC Med. 2015, 13:45.
63. Slack M.D., et al. Characterizing heterogeneous cellular responses to perturbations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105(49):19306-19311.
64. Toriello N.M., et al. Integrated microfluidic bioprocessor for single-cell gene expression analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105(51):20173-20178.
65. Gerdes M.J., et al. Emerging understanding of multiscale tumor heterogeneity. Front Oncol. 2014, 4:366.