Drug response consistency in CCLE and CGP

Nature

Volumn 540, Issue 7631, 2016, Pages E9-E10

  Bouhaddou, Mehdi ^a   Distefano, Matthew S ^a   Riesel, Eric A ^a   Carrasco, Emilce ^a   Holzapfel, Hadassa Y ^a   Jones, Deanalisa C ^a   Smith, Gregory R ^a   Stern, Alan D ^a   Somani, Sulaiman S ^a   Thompson, T Victoria ^a   Birtwistle, Marc R ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

5 CHLORO 4 [[2 (ISOPROPYLSULFONYL)PHENYL]AMINO] 2 [[2 METHOXY 4 [4 (4 METHYL 1 PIPERAZINYL) 1 PIPERIDINYL]PHENYL]AMINO]PYRIMIDINE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; PACLITAXEL; TANESPIMYCIN;

BIOCHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CANCER; CELLS AND CELL COMPONENTS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; DRUG; GENE EXPRESSION; GENOME;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CANCER CELL LINE; CANCER CELL LINE ENCYCLOPEDIA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GENOME PROJECT; CELL VIABILITY; CHEMOSENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SENSITIVITY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC DATABASE; GENOME; IC50; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 85000730456     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature20580     Document Type: Short Survey

References (13)

1. Bouhaddou, M. et al. Drug response consistency in CCLE and CGP. Nature 540,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature20580 (2016).
2. Garnett, M. J. et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drugsensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 483, 570-575 (2012).
3. Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictivemodelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603-607 (2012).
4. Pozdeyev, N. et al. Integrating heterogeneous drug sensitivity data from cancerpharmacogenomic studies. Oncotarget http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10010 (2016).
5. Mpindi, J. P. et al. Consistency in drug response profiling. Nature 540,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature20171 (2016).
6. Smirnov, P. et al. PharmacoGx: An R package for analysis of largepharmacogenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32, 1244-1246 (2015).
7. Haibe-Kains, B. et al. Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature504, 389-393 (2013).
8. Safikhani, Z. et al. Revisiting inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies.F1000Research http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9611.1 (2016).
9. Matthews, B. W. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondarystructure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 405, 442-451(1975).
10. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement forcategorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174 (1977).
11. Seashore-Ludlow, B. et al. Harnessing connectivity in a large-scale smallmoleculesensitivity dataset. Cancer Discov. 5, 1210-1223 (2015).
12. Iorio, F. et al. A landscape of pharmacogenomic interactions in cancer. Cell166, 740-754 (2016).
13. Sandve, G. K., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J. & Hovig, E. Ten simple rules forreproducible computational research. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003285 (2013).