Computational genomics tools for dissecting tumour-immune cell interactions

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 441-458

  Hackl, Hubert ^a   Charoentong, Pornpimol ^a   Finotello, Francesca ^a   Trajanoski, Zlatko ^a  

^a INNSBRUCK MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

T LYMPHOCYTE RECEPTOR; TUMOR ANTIGEN; CHEMOKINE;

BINDING AFFINITY; CANCER IMMUNOLOGY; CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY; CELL INTERACTION; DATA ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; HLA TYPING; HUMAN; IMMUNOCOMPETENT CELL; MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; REVIEW; TUMOR CELL; ANIMAL; BIOLOGY; CELL COMMUNICATION; GENETICS; IMMUNOLOGY; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; CELL COMMUNICATION; CHEMOKINES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GENOMICS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84976869597     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: 14710064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg.2016.67     Document Type: Review

References (166)

1. International Cancer Genome Consortium. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464, 993-998 (2010).
2. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 455, 1061-1068 (2008). The TCGA Research Network provides clinical information, genomic characterization data and high-level sequence analysis of the tumour genomes.
3. Fojo, T., Mailankody, S. & Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics-the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 140, 1225-1236 (2014).
4. McGranahan, N. et al. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science 351, 1463-1469 (2016).
5. Pardoll, D. M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 252-264 (2012).
6. Schadendorf, D. et al. Pooled analysis of long-term survival data from Phase II and Phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 1889-1894 (2015).
7. Wolchok, J. D. PD-1 blockers. Cell 162, 937 (2015).
8. Schumacher, T. N. & Schreiber, R. D. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348, 69-74 (2015).
9. Chen, D. S. & Mellman, I. Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle. Immunity 39, 1-10 (2013).
10. Angelova, M. et al. Characterization of the immunophenotypes and antigenomes of colorectal cancers reveals distinct tumor escape mechanisms and novel targets for immunotherapy. Genome Biol. 16, 64 (2015).
11. Schreiber, R. D., Old, L. J. & Smyth, M. J. Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity's roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science 331, 1565-1570 (2011).
12. Auton, A. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68-74 (2015).
13. Heng, T. S. P. & Painter, M. W. & Immunological Genome Project Consortium. The Immunological Genome Project: networks of gene expression in immune cells. Nat. Immunol. 9, 1091-1094 (2008). The Immunological Genome Project provides a comprehensive compendium of gene expression and regulation networks in immune cells and cell lineages.
14. Saadatpour, A., Lai, S., Guo, G. & Yuan, G.-C. Single-cell analysis in cancer genomics. Trends Genet. 31, 576-586 (2015).
15. Hashimshony, T., Wagner, F., Sher, N. & Yanai, I. CEL-seq: single-cell RNA-seq by multiplexed linear amplification. Cell Rep. 2, 666-673 (2012).
16. Fan, H. C., Fu, G. K. & Fodor, S. P. A. Expression profiling. Combinatorial labeling of single cells for gene expression cytometry. Science 347, 1258367 (2015).
17. Klein, A. M. et al. Droplet barcoding for single-cell transcriptomics applied to embryonic stem cells. Cell 161, 1187-1201 (2015).
18. Macosko, E. Z. et al. Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161, 1202-1214 (2015).
19. Gaublomme, J. T. et al. Single-cell genomics unveils critical regulators of Th17 cell pathogenicity. Cell 163, 1400-1412 (2015).
20. Stubbington, M. J. T. et al. T cell fate and clonality inference from single-cell transcriptomes. Nat. Methods 13, 329-332 (2016).
21. Gawad, C., Koh, W. & Quake, S. R. Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 175-188 (2016).
22. Pabinger, S. et al. A survey of tools for variant analysis of next-generation genome sequencing data. Brief. Bioinform. 15, 256-278 (2014).
23. Ding, L., Wendl, M. C., McMichael, J. F. & Raphael, B. J. Expanding the computational toolbox for mining cancer genomes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 556-570 (2014).
24. Carter, S. L. et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 413-421 (2012).
25. Roth, A. et al. PyClone: statistical inference of clonal population structure in cancer. Nat. Methods 11, 396-398 (2014).
26. Bock, C. Analysing and interpreting DNA methylation data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 705-719 (2012).
27. Fridman, W. H., Pagès, F., Sautès-Fridman, C. & Galon, J. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12, 298-306 (2012).
28. Galon, J. et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 313, 1960-1964 (2006).
29. Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545-15550 (2005). GSEA is a widely used tool for determining whether an a priori defined set of genes shows statistically significant, concordant differences between two biological states (for example, phenotypes).
30. Shen-Orr, S. S. & Gaujoux, R. Computational deconvolution: extracting cell type-specific information from heterogeneous samples. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 25, 571-578 (2013).
31. Barbie, D. A. et al. Systematic RNA interference reveals that oncogenic KRAS-driven cancers require TBK1. Nature 462, 108-112 (2009).
32. Kidd, B. A., Peters, L. A., Schadt, E. E. & Dudley, J. T. Unifying immunology with informatics and multiscale biology. Nat. Immunol. 15, 118-127 (2014).
33. Rahmatallah, Y., Emmert-Streib, F. & Glazko, G. Gene set analysis approaches for RNA-seq data: performance evaluation and application guideline. Brief. Bioinform. 17, 393-407 (2015).
34. Abbas, A. R. et al. Immune response in silico (IRIS): immune-specific genes identified from a compendium of microarray expression data. Genes Immun. 6, 319-331 (2005).
35. Godec, J. et al. Compendium of immune signatures identifies conserved and species-specific biology in response to inflammation. Immunity 44, 194-206 (2016).
36. Liberzon, A. et al. Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 27, 1739-1740 (2011).
37. Gong, T. & Szustakowski, J. D. DeconRNASeq: a statistical framework for deconvolution of heterogeneous tissue samples based on mRNA-seq data. Bioinformatics 29, 1083-1085 (2013).
38. Newman, A. M. et al. Robust enumeration of cell subsets from tissue expression profiles. Nat. Methods 12, 453-457 (2015). CIBERSORT is a computational method for characterizing cell composition of complex tissues from their gene expression profiles.
39. Accomando, W. P., Wiencke, J. K., Houseman, E. A., Nelson, H. H. & Kelsey, K. T. Quantitative reconstruction of leukocyte subsets using DNA methylation. Genome Biol. 15, R50 (2014).
40. Houseman, E. A. et al. DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution. BMC Bioinformatics 13, 86 (2012).
41. Koestler, D. C. et al. Blood-based profiles of DNA methylation predict the underlying distribution of cell types: a validation analysis. Epigenetics 8, 816-826 (2013).
42. Zou, J., Lippert, C., Heckerman, D., Aryee, M. & Listgarten, J. Epigenome-wide association studies without the need for cell-type composition. Nat. Methods 11, 309-311 (2014).
43. Houseman, E. A., Kelsey, K. T., Wiencke, J. K. & Marsit, C. J. Cell-composition effects in the analysis of DNA methylation array data: a mathematical perspective. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 95 (2015).
44. Coulie, P. G., Van den Eynde, B. J., van der Bruggen, P. & Boon, T. Tumour antigens recognized by T lymphocytes: at the core of cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 14, 135-146 (2014).
45. van der Bruggen, P. et al. A gene encoding an antigen recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma. Science 254, 1643-1647 (1991).
46. Almeida, L. G. et al. CTdatabase: a knowledge-base of high-throughput and curated data on cancer-testis antigens. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D816-D819 (2009). This is the most updated and curated resource for cancer germline antigens and contains information about cancer germline genes, their expression in tumour and normal tissues and induced immune response.
47. Fonseca, N. A., Rung, J., Brazma, A. & Marioni, J. C. Tools for mapping high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 3169-3177 (2012).
48. McKenna, A. et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297-1303 (2010).
49. Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213-219 (2013).
50. Wang, Q. et al. Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers. Genome Med. 5, 91 (2013).
51. Shiraishi, Y. et al. An empirical Bayesian framework for somatic mutation detection from cancer genome sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e89 (2013).
52. Flicek, P. et al. Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D84-D90 (2012).
53. Pruitt, K. D., Tatusova, T., Brown, G. R. & Maglott, D. R. NCBI Reference Sequences (RefSeq): current status, new features and genome annotation policy. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D130-D135 (2012).
54. UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D204-D212 (2015).
55. McCarthy, D. J. et al. Choice of transcripts and software has a large effect on variant annotation. Genome Med. 6, 26 (2014).
56. Lefranc, M. -P. et al. IMGT®, the international ImMunoGeneTics information system® 25 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D413-D422 (2015).
57. Warren, R. L. et al. Derivation of HLA types from shotgun sequence datasets. Genome Med. 4, 95 (2012).
58. Boegel, S. et al. HLA typing from RNA-seq sequence reads. Genome Med. 4, 102 (2012). Seq2HLA and HLAminer, described in references 57 and 58, were the first tools that used NGS data to derive HLA alleles.
59. Kim, H. J. & Pourmand, N. HLA typing from RNA-seq data using hierarchical read weighting. PLoS ONE 8, e67885 (2013).
60. Szolek, A. et al. OptiType: precision HLA typing from next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 30, 3310-3316 (2014).
61. Bai, Y., Ni, M., Cooper, B., Wei, Y. & Fury, W. Inference of high resolution HLA types using genome-wide RNA or DNA sequencing reads. BMC Genomics 15, 325 (2014).
62. Nariai, N. et al. HLA-VBSeq: accurate HLA typing at full resolution from whole-genome sequencing data. BMC Genomics 16, S7 (2015).
63. Shukla, S. A. et al. Comprehensive analysis of cancer-associated somatic mutations in class I HLA genes. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1152-1158 (2015).
64. Liu, C. et al. ATHLATES: accurate typing of human leukocyte antigen through exome sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e142 (2013).
65. Huang, Y. et al. HLAreporter: a tool for HLA typing from next generation sequencing data. Genome Med. 7, 25 (2015).
66. Kreiter, S. et al. Mutant MHC class II epitopes drive therapeutic immune responses to cancer. Nature 520, 692-696 (2015).
67. Abbas, A. K., Lichtman, A. H. & Pillai, S. Cellular and Molecular Immunology (Elsevier, 2014).
68. Nielsen, M. & Lund, O. NN-align. An artificial neural network-based alignment algorithm for MHC class II peptide binding prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 296 (2009).
69. Backert, L. & Kohlbacher, O. Immunoinformatics and epitope prediction in the age of genomic medicine. Genome Med. 7, 119 (2015).
70. Gupta, S. K. et al. Personalized cancer immunotherapy using systems medicine approaches. Brief. Bioinform. 17, 453-467 (2016).
71. Parker, K. C., Bednarek, M. A. & Coligan, J. E. Scheme for ranking potential HLA-A2 binding peptides based on independent binding of individual peptide side-chains. J. Immunol. 152, 163-175 (1994).
72. Rammensee, H., Bachmann, J., Emmerich, N. P., Bachor, O. A. & Stevanović, S. SYFPEITHI: database for MHC ligands and peptide motifs. Immunogenetics 50, 213-219 (1999).
73. Karosiene, E., Lundegaard, C., Lund, O. & Nielsen, M. NetMHCcons: a consensus method for the major histocompatibility complex class I predictions. Immunogenetics 64, 177-186 (2012).
74. Moutaftsi, M. et al. A consensus epitope prediction approach identifies the breadth of murine TCD8+-cell responses to vaccinia virus. Nat. Biotechnol. 24,817-819 (2006).
75. Vita, R. et al. The immune epitope database (IEDB) 3.0. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D405-D412 (2015).
76. Zhang, G. L., Lin, H. H., Keskin, D. B., Reinherz, E. L. & Brusic, V. Dana-Farber repository for machine learning in immunology. J. Immunol. Methods 374, 18-25 (2011).
77. Hoof, I. et al. NetMHCpan, a method for MHC class I binding prediction beyond humans. Immunogenetics 61, 1-13 (2009). NetMHCpan predicts the binding affinity of peptides to class-I MHC molecules. It provides high-accuracy predictions for both well-annotated and novel alleles.
78. Andreatta, M. et al. Accurate pan-specific prediction of peptide-MHC class II binding affinity with improved binding core identification. Immunogenetics 67, 641-650 (2015).
79. Trolle, T. et al. Automated benchmarking of peptide-MHC class I binding predictions. Bioinformatics 31, 2174-2181 (2015).
80. Nielsen, M., Justesen, S., Lund, O., Lundegaard, C. & Buus, S. NetMHCIIpan-2.0 - improved pan-specific HLA-DR predictions using a novel concurrent alignment and weight optimization training procedure. Immunome Res. 6, 9 (2010).
81. Peters, B. et al. A community resource benchmarking predictions of peptide binding to MHC-I molecules. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e65 (2006).
82. Wang, P. et al. A systematic assessment of MHC class II peptide binding predictions and evaluation of a consensus approach. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000048 (2008).
83. Jørgensen, K. W., Rasmussen, M., Buus, S. & Nielsen, M. NetMHCstab - predicting stability of peptide-MHC-I complexes; impacts for cytotoxic T lymphocyte epitope discovery. Immunology 141, 18-26 (2014).
84. Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Lund, O. & Keşmir, C. The role of the proteasome in generating cytotoxic T-cell epitopes: insights obtained from improved predictions of proteasomal cleavage. Immunogenetics 57, 33-41 (2005).
85. Bhasin, M. & Raghava, G. P. S. Pcleavage: an SVM based method for prediction of constitutive proteasome and immunoproteasome cleavage sites in antigenic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, W202-W207 (2005).
86. Zhang, G. L., Petrovsky, N., Kwoh, C. K., August, J. T. & Brusic, V. PREDTAP: a system for prediction of peptide binding to the human transporter associated with antigen processing. Immunome Res. 2, 3 (2006).
87. Dönnes, P. & Kohlbacher, O. Integrated modeling of the major events in the MHC class I antigen processing pathway. Protein Sci. 14, 2132-2140 (2005).
88. Tung, C.-W. & Ho, S. -Y. POPI: predicting immunogenicity of MHC class I binding peptides by mining informative physicochemical properties. Bioinformatics 23, 942-949 (2007).
89. Tung, C. -W., Ziehm, M., Kämper, A., Kohlbacher, O. & Ho, S. -Y. POPISK: T-cell reactivity prediction using support vector machines and string kernels. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 446 (2011).
90. Trolle, T. & Nielsen, M. NetTepi: an integrated method for the prediction of T cell epitopes. Immunogenetics 66, 449-456 (2014).
91. Calis, J. J. A. et al. Properties of MHC class I presented peptides that enhance immunogenicity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003266 (2013).
92. Calis, J. J. A. & Rosenberg, B. R. Characterizing immune repertoires by high throughput sequencing: strategies and applications. Trends Immunol. 35, 581-590 (2014).
93. Bolotin, D. A. et al. Next generation sequencing for TCR repertoire profiling: platform-specific features and correction algorithms. Eur. J. Immunol. 42, 3073-3083 (2012).
94. Greiff, V., Miho, E., Menzel, U. & Reddy, S. T. Bioinformatic and statistical analysis of adaptive immune repertoires. Trends Immunol. 36, 738-749 (2015).
95. Yaari, G. & Kleinstein, S. H. Practical guidelines for B-cell receptor repertoire sequencing analysis. Genome Med. 7, 121 (2015).
96. Bolotin, D. A. et al. MiTCR: software for T-cell receptor sequencing data analysis. Nat. Methods 10, 813-814 (2013).
97. Yu, Y., Ceredig, R. & Seoighe, C. LymAnalyzer: a tool for comprehensive analysis of next generation sequencing data of T cell receptors and immunoglobulins. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, e31 (2015).
98. Bolotin, D. A. et al. MiXCR: software for comprehensive adaptive immunity profiling. Nat. Methods 12, 380-381 (2015). MiXCR is a tool for B cell receptor and TCR profiling, which is applicable to data from targeted receptor sequencing and non-targeted RNA-seq.
99. Shugay, M. et al. Towards error-free profiling of immune repertoires. Nat. Methods 11, 653-655 (2014).
100. Yang, X. et al. TCRklass: a new K-string-based algorithm for human and mouse TCR repertoire characterization. J. Immunol. 194, 446-454 (2015).
101. Kuchenbecker, L. et al. IMSEQ - a fast and error aware approach to immunogenetic sequence analysis. Bioinformatics 31, 2963-2971 (2015).
102. Thomas, N., Heather, J., Ndifon, W., Shawe-Taylor, J. & Chain, B. Decombinator: a tool for fast, efficient gene assignment in T-cell receptor sequences using a finite state machine. Bioinformatics 29, 542-550 (2013).
103. Ye, J., Ma, N., Madden, T. L. & Ostell, J. M. IgBLAST: an immunoglobulin variable domain sequence analysis tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, W34-W40 (2013).
104. Gaëta, B. A. et al. iHMMune-align: hidden Markov model-based alignment and identification of germline genes in rearranged immunoglobulin gene sequences. Bioinformatics 23, 1580-1587 (2007).
105. Li, S. et al. IMGT/HighV QUEST paradigm for T cell receptor IMGT clonotype diversity and next generation repertoire immunoprofiling. Nat. Commun. 4, 2333 (2013).
106. Brown, S. D., Raeburn, L. A. & Holt, R. A. Profiling tissue-resident T cell repertoires by RNA sequencing. Genome Med. 7, 125 (2015).
107. Han, A., Glanville, J., Hansmann, L. & Davis, M. M. Linking T-cell receptor sequence to functional phenotype at the single-cell level. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 684-692 (2014).
108. Giardine, B. et al. Galaxy: a platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome Res. 15, 1451-1455 (2005).
109. Leek, J. T. svaseq: removing batch effects and other unwanted noise from sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e161 (2014).
110. Larsen, M. V. et al. Large-scale validation of methods for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte epitope prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 424 (2007).
111. Schubert, B., Brachvogel, H.-P., Jürges, C. & Kohlbacher, O. EpiToolKit - a web-based workbench for vaccine design. Bioinformatics 31, 2211-2213 (2015).
112. Schubert, B. et al. FRED 2: an immunoinformatics framework for python. Bioinformatics http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw113 (2016).
113. Hundal, J. et al. pVAC-Seq: a genome-guided in silico approach to identifying tumor neoantigens. Genome Med. 8, 11 (2016).
114. Gajewski, T. F. et al. Cancer immunotherapy strategies based on overcoming barriers within the tumor microenvironment. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 25, 268-276 (2013).
115. Tumeh, P. C. et al. PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. Nature 515, 568-571 (2014).
116. Van Allen, E. M. et al. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science 350, 207-211 (2015);
117. erratum 352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8264 (2016).
118. Tran, E. et al. Immunogenicity of somatic mutations in human gastrointestinal cancers. Science 350, 1387-1390 (2015).
119. Walter, S. et al. Multipeptide immune response to cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide associates with longer patient survival. Nat. Med. 18, 1254-1261 (2012).
120. Tran, E. et al. Cancer immunotherapy based on mutation-specific CD4+ T cells in a patient with epithelial cancer. Science 344, 641-645 (2014).
121. Sharma, P. & Allison, J. P. Immune checkpoint targeting in cancer therapy: toward combination strategies with curative potential. Cell 161, 205-214 (2015).
122. Cox, D. B. T., Platt, R. J. & Zhang, F. Therapeutic genome editing: prospects and challenges. Nat. Med. 21, 121-131 (2015).
123. Chattopadhyay, P. K., Gierahn, T. M., Roederer, M. & Love, J. C. Single-cell technologies for monitoring immune systems. Nat. Immunol. 15, 128-135 (2014).
124. Kononen, J. et al. Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat. Med. 4, 844-847 (1998).
125. Giesen, C. et al. Highly multiplexed imaging of tumor tissues with subcellular resolution by mass cytometry. Nat. Methods 11, 417-422 (2014).
126. Bendall, S. C. & Nolan, G. P. From single cells to deep phenotypes in cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 639-647 (2012).
127. Qiu, P. et al. Extracting a cellular hierarchy from high-dimensional cytometry data with SPADE. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 886-891 (2011).
128. Amir, E. D. et al. viSNE enables visualization of high dimensional single-cell data and reveals phenotypic heterogeneity of leukemia. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 545-552 (2013).
129. Diggins, K. E., Ferrell, P. B. & Irish, J. M. Methods for discovery and characterization of cell subsets in high dimensional mass cytometry data. Methods 82, 55-63 (2015).
130. Levine, J. H. et al. Data-driven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitor-like cells that correlate with prognosis. Cell 162, 184-197 (2015).
131. Gaujoux, R. & Seoighe, C. CellMix: a comprehensive toolbox for gene expression deconvolution. Bioinformatics 29, 2211-2212 (2013).
132. Yuan, Y. et al. Quantitative image analysis of cellular heterogeneity in breast tumors complements genomic profiling. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 157ra143 (2012).
133. Repsilber, D. et al. Biomarker discovery in heterogeneous tissue samples -taking the in-silico deconfounding approach. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 27 (2010).
134. Tuominen, V. J., Ruotoistenmäki, S., Viitanen, A., Jumppanen, M. & Isola, J. ImmunoRatio: a publicly available web application for quantitative image analysis of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Ki-67. Breast Cancer Res. 12, R56 (2010).
135. Liebner, D. A., Huang, K. & Parvin, J. D. MMAD: microarray microdissection with analysis of differences is a computational tool for deconvoluting cell type-specific contributions from tissue samples. Bioinformatics 30, 682-689 (2014).
136. Qiao, W. et al. PERT: a method for expression deconvolution of human blood samples from varied microenvironmental and developmental conditions. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002838 (2012).
137. Bolen, C. R., Uduman, M. & Kleinstein, S. H. Cell subset prediction for blood genomic studies. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 258 (2011).
138. Wang, K., Li, M. & Hakonarson, H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e164 (2010).
139. Ramos, A. H. et al. Oncotator: cancer variant annotation tool. Hum. Mutat. 36, E2423-E2429 (2015).
140. Cingolani, P. et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly 6, 80-92 (2012).
141. Larson, D. E. et al. SomaticSniper: identification of somatic point mutations in whole genome sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 311-317 (2012).
142. Saunders, C. T. et al. Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor-normal sample pairs. Bioinformatics 28, 1811-1817 (2012).
143. Zhou, W. et al. TransVar: a multilevel variant annotator for precision genomics. Nat. Methods 12, 1002-1003 (2015).
144. Koboldt, D. C. et al. VarScan 2: somatic mutation and copy number alteration discovery in cancer by exome sequencing. Genome Res. 22, 568-576 (2012).
145. McLaren, W. et al. Deriving the consequences of genomic variants with the Ensembl API and SNP Effect Predictor. Bioinformatics 26, 2069-2070 (2010).
146. Boegel, S., Löwer, M., Bukur, T., Sahin, U. & Castle, J. C. A catalog of HLA type, HLA expression, and neo-epitope candidates in human cancer cell lines. Oncoimmunology 3, e954893 (2014).
147. Lundegaard, C. et al. NetMHC-3.0: accurate web accessible predictions of human, mouse and monkey MHC class I affinities for peptides of length 8-11. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W509-W512 (2008).
148. Nielsen, M. & Andreatta, M. NetMHCpan-3.0; improved prediction of binding to MHC class I molecules integrating information from multiple receptor and peptide length datasets. Genome Med. 8, 33 (2016).
149. Zhang, H., Lund, O. & Nielsen, M. The PickPocket method for predicting binding specificities for receptors based on receptor pocket similarities: application to MHC-peptide binding. Bioinformatics 25, 1293-1299 (2009).
150. Stranzl, T., Larsen, M. V., Lundegaard, C. & Nielsen, M. NetCTLpan: pan-specific MHC class I pathway epitope predictions. Immunogenetics 62, 357-368 (2010).
151. Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603-607 (2012).
152. Hess, J. L. The Cancer Genome Anatomy Project: power tools for cancer biologists. Cancer Invest. 21, 325-326 (2003).
153. Goldman, M. et al. The UCSC Cancer Genomics Browser: update 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D949-D954 (2013).
154. Forbes, S. A. et al. COSMIC: exploring the world's knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D805-D811 (2015).
155. Cerami, E. et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2, 401-404 (2012).
156. Ellis, M. J. et al. Connecting genomic alterations to cancer biology with proteomics: the NCI Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium. Cancer Discov. 3, 1108-1112 (2013).
157. Gonzalez-Perez, A. et al. IntOGen-mutations identifies cancer drivers across tumor types. Nat. Methods 10, 1081-1082 (2013).
158. Uhlén, M. et al. Proteomics. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 347, 1260419 (2015).
159. Toseland, C. P. et al. AntiJen: a quantitative immunology database integrating functional, thermodynamic, kinetic, biophysical, and cellular data. Immunome Res. 1, 4 (2005).
160. Grimes, G. R. et al. GPX-Macrophage Expression Atlas: a database for expression profiles of macrophages challenged with a variety of pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, benign and pathogen insults. BMC Genomics 6, 178 (2005).
161. Watkins, N. A. et al. A HaemAtlas: characterizing gene expression in differentiated human blood cells. Blood 113, e1-9 (2009).
162. Reche, P. A., Zhang, H., Glutting, J.-P. & Reinherz, E. L. EPIMHC: a curated database of MHC-binding peptides for customized computational vaccinology. Bioinformatics 21, 2140-2141 (2005).
163. Robinson, J. et al. The IMGT/HLA database. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D1222-D1227 (2013).
164. Bhattacharya, S. et al. ImmPort: disseminating data to the public for the future of immunology. Immunol. Res. 58, 234-239 (2014).
165. Breuer, K. et al. InnateDB: systems biology of innate immunity and beyond-recent updates and continuing curation. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D1228-D1233 (2013).
166. Vigneron, N., Stroobant, V., Van den Eynde, B. J. & van der Bruggen, P. Database of T cell-defined human tumor antigens: the 2013 update. Cancer Immun. 13, 15 (2013).