Revisiting inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies

F1000Research

Volumn 5, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Haibe Kains, Benjamin ^a,b,d,n   Safikhani, Zhaleh ^a,b   Smirnov, Petr ^b   Freeman, Mark ^b   El Hachem, Nehme ^c   She, Adrian ^b   Rene, Quevedo ^a,b   Goldenberg, Anna ^d,e   Birkbak, Nicolai J ^f   Hatzis, Christos ^g,h   Shi, Leming ^i,j   Beck, Andrew H ^k   Aerts, Hugo J W L ^k,l   Quackenbush, John ^l,m  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c CLIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^h YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

^j FUDAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^k HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^l Harvard Medical School ^*  (United States)

^m DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁿ ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Cancer; Consistency; Drug sensitivity; Pharmacogenomic agreement; Pharmacogenomics

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; CANCER CELL LINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; DRUG CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SENSITIVITY; DRUG TARGETING; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE MUTATION; GENOMICS; HUMAN; MACHINE LEARNING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PHARMACOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PHENOTYPE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 85000837889     PISSN: 20461402     EISSN: 1759796X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.9611.3     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Garnett MJ Edelman EJ Heidorn SJ: Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature. 2012;483(7391):570-5. 22460902 10.1038/nature11005 3349233
2. Barretina J Caponigro G Stransky N: The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature. 2012;483(7391):603-7. 22460905 10.1038/nature11003 3320027
3. Papillon-Cavanagh S De Jay N Hachem N: Comparison and validation of genomic predictors for anticancer drug sensitivity. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(4):597-602. 23355484 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001442 3721163
4. Dong Z Zhang N Li C: Anticancer drug sensitivity prediction in cell lines from baseline gene expression through recursive feature selection. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:489. 26121976 10.1186/s12885-015-1492-6 4485860
5. Jang IS Neto EC Guinney J: Systematic assessment of analytical methods for drug sensitivity prediction from cancer cell line data. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2014;63-74. 24297534 10.1142/9789814583220_0007 3995541
6. Cortés-Ciriano I van Westen GJ Bouvier G: Improved large-scale prediction of growth inhibition patterns using the NCI60 cancer cell line panel. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(1):85-95. 26351271 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv529 4681992
7. Haibe-Kains B El-Hachem N Birkbak NJ: Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature. 2013;504(7480):389-93. 24284626 10.1038/nature12831 4237165
8. Hatzis C Bedard PL Birkbak NJ: Enhancing reproducibility in cancer drug screening: how do we move forward? Cancer Res. 2014;74(15):4016-23. 25015668 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0725 4119520
9. Safikhani Z El-Hachem N Quevedo R: Assessment of pharmacogenomic agreement. F1000 Res. 2016;5:825. 27408686 10.12688/f1000research.8705.1 4926729
10. Haverty PM Lin E Tan J: Reproducible pharmacogenomic profiling of cancer cell line panels. Nature. 2016;533(7603):333-7. 27193678 10.1038/nature17987
11. Smirnov P Safikhani Z El-Hachem N: PharmacoGx: an R package for analysis of large pharmacogenomic datasets. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(8):1244-6. 26656004 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv723
12. Hong H Xu L Liu J: Technical reproducibility of genotyping SNP arrays used in genome-wide association studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44483. 22970228 10.1371/journal.pone.0044483 3436888
13. Yu M Selvaraj SK Liang-Chu MM: A resource for cell line authentication, annotation and quality control. Nature. 2015;520(7547):307-11. 25877200 10.1038/nature14397
14. Goodspeed A Heiser LM Gray JW: Tumor-derived Cell Lines as Molecular Models of Cancer Pharmacogenomics. Mol Cancer Res. 2016;14(1):3-13. 26248648 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-15-0189 4828339
15. Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia Consortium, Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer Consortium: Pharmacogenomic agreement between two cancer cell line data sets. Nature. 2015;528(7580):84-7. 26570998 10.1038/nature15736
16. Youden WJ: Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32-5. 15405679 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3
17. Pearson K: Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents. Proc R Soc Lond. 1895;58:240-2. 10.1098/rspl.1895.0041
18. Spearman C: The proof and measurement of association between two things. By C. Spearman, 1904. Am J Psychol. 1987;100(3-4):441-71. 3322052
19. Somers RH: A New Asymmetric Measure of Association for Ordinal Variables. Am Sociol Rev. 1962;27(6):799-811. 10.2307/2090408
20. Matthews BW: Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1975;405(2):442-51. 1180967 10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9
21. Cramér H: Mathematical Methods of Statistics.(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946). CramérMathematical Methods of Statistics1946. Reference Source
22. Powers DM: Evaluation: from Precision, Recall and F-measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation.2011. Reference Source
23. Hudson AM Yates T Li Y: Discrepancies in cancer genomic sequencing highlight opportunities for driver mutation discovery. Cancer Res. 2014;74(22):6390-6. 25256751 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1020 4247168
24. Jaccard P: Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et du Jura.Impr Corbaz;1901;37:547-579. 10.5169/seals-266450
25. Harrell FE Jr Califf RM Pryor DB: Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982;247(18):2543-6. 7069920 10.1001/jama.1982.03320430047030
26. MAQC Consortium, Shi L Reid LH: The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(9):1151-61. 16964229 10.1038/nbt1239 3272078
27. Shi L Campbell G Jones WD: The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(8):827-38. 20676074 10.1038/nbt.1665 3315840
28. Pozdeyev N Yoo M Mackie R: Integrating heterogeneous drug sensitivity data from cancer pharmacogenomic studies. Oncotarget. 2016;7(32):51619-51625. 27322211 10.18632/oncotarget.10010 5239501
29. Safikhani Z Thu KL Silvester J: Gene isoforms as expression-based biomarkers predictive of drug response in vitro. 10.1101/160937
30. Daemen A Griffith OL Heiser LM: Modeling precision treatment of breast cancer. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R110. Erratum in: Genome Biol. 2015;16:95. 24176112 10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r110 3937590
31. Safikhani Z El-Hachem N Smirnov P: Safikhani et al. reply. Nature. 2016;540(7631):E2-E4. 27905430 10.1038/nature19839
32. Geeleher P Gamazon ER Seoighe C: Consistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature. 2016;540(7631):E1-E2. 27905415 10.1038/nature19838
33. Irizarry RA Hobbs B Collin F: Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics. 2003;4(2):249-64. 12925520 10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249
34. de Leeuw WC Rauwerda H Jonker MJ: Salvaging Affymetrix probes after probe-level re-annotation. BMC Res Notes. 2008;1:66. 18710586 10.1186/1756-0500-1-66 2547102
35. Carter SL Meyerson M Getz G: Accurate estimation of homologue-specific DNA concentration-ratios in cancer samples allows long-range haplotyping.Scott L Carter,2011;59. Reference Source
36. Carter SL Cibulskis K Helman E: Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(5):413-21. 22544022 10.1038/nbt.2203 4383288
37. Wilks C Cline MS Weiler E: The Cancer Genomics Hub (CGHub): overcoming cancer through the power of torrential data. Database (Oxford). 2014;2014: pii: bau093. 25267794 10.1093/database/bau093 4178372
38. Trapnell C Roberts A Goff L: Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nat Protoc. 2012;7(3):562-78. 22383036 10.1038/nprot.2012.016 3334321
39. Bairoch A: ExPASy - Cellosaurus [Internet]. Cellosaurus. 2015; [cited 2016 Jan 26]. Reference Source
40. Anderson E Veith GD Weininger D: SMILES, a Line Notation and Computerized Interpreter for Chemical Structures.1987. Reference Source
41. Tanimoto TT: An Elementary Mathematical Theory of Classification and Prediction.International Business Machines Corporation;1958; (Internal Technical Report). Reference Source
42. Benjamini Y Hochberg Y: Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. Reference Source
43. Safikhani Z Smirnov P Freeman M: Dataset: Revisiting inconsistency in large pharmacogenomics studies. Open Science Framework. 2016. Data Source