Biologically relevant heterogeneity: Metrics and practical insights

SLAS Discovery

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 213-237

  Gough, Albert ^a,b   Stern, Andrew M ^a,b   Maier, John ^a   Lezon, Timothy ^a,b   Shun, Tong Ying ^b   Chennubhotla, Chakra ^a,b   Schurdak, Mark E ^a,b,c   Haney, Steven A ^d   Lansing Taylor, D ^a,b,c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cellular models; Computational pathology; Drug discovery; Flow cytometry; Heterogeneity; High content screening; Organs on chips; Precision medicine; Quantitative systems pharmacology; Systems biology

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; TRASTUZUMAB;

BIOLOGICAL HETEROGENEITY; CELL HETEROGENEITY; CELL POPULATION; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DESIGN; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HUMAN; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; INTRACELLULAR SIGNALING; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS; MULTIPLE CANCER; NONHUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; CYTOCHEMISTRY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENETICS; MACHINE LEARNING; NEOPLASM; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PROCEDURES; REFERENCE VALUE; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG DISCOVERY; FLOW CYTOMETRY; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HISTOCYTOCHEMISTRY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MACHINE LEARNING; NEOPLASMS; PRECISION MEDICINE; REFERENCE VALUES; SINGLE-CELL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

EID: 85021689350     PISSN: 24725552     EISSN: 24725560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2472555216682725     Document Type: Review

References (235)

1. Huang, S. Non-Genetic Heterogeneity of Cells in Development: More Than Just Noise. Development. 2009, 136, 3853-3862.
2. Gingold, J. A.; Coakley, E. S.; Su, J.; et al. Distribution Analyzer, a Methodology for Identifying and Clustering Outlier Conditions from Single-Cell Distributions, and Its Application to a Nanog Reporter RNAi Screen. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015, 16, 225.
3. Krieger, T.; Simons, B. D. Dynamic Stem Cell Heterogeneity. Development. 2015, 142, 1396-1406.
4. Gough, A. H.; Chen, N.; Shun, T. Y.; et al. Identifying and Quantifying Heterogeneity in High Content Analysis:Application of Heterogeneity Indices to Drug Discovery. PLoS One 2014, 9, e102678.
5. Gough, A.; Lezon, T.; Faeder, J. R.; et al. High-Content Analysis with Cellular and Tissue Systems Biology: A Bridge between Cancer Cell Biology and Tissue-Based Diagnostics. In The Molecular Basis of Cancer, Mendelsohn, J., Howley, P. M., Israel, M. A.; et al., eds., Saunders/Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, 2015, 4th ed., pp. 369-392.
6. Stern, A. M.; Schurdak, M. E.; Bahar, I.; et al. A Perspective on Implementing a Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Platform for Drug Discovery and the Advancement of Personalized Medicine. J. Biomol. Screen. 2016, 21, 521-534.
7. Marusyk, A.; Almendro, V.; Polyak, K. Intra-Tumour Heterogeneity: A Looking Glass for Cancer? Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 323-334.
8. Luria, S. E.; Delbruck, M. Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance. Genetics. 1943, 28, 491-511.
9. Steininger, R. J.; Rajaram, S.; Girard, L.; et al. On Comparing Heterogeneity across Biomarkers. Cytometry A. 2015, 87, 558-567.
10. Ruiz, C.; Li, J.; Luttgen, M. S.; et al. Limited Genomic Heterogeneity of Circulating Melanoma Cells in Advanced Stage Patients. Phys. Biol. 2015, 12, 016008.
11. Balluff, B.; Frese, C. K.; Maier, S. K.; et al. De Novo Discovery of Phenotypic Intratumour Heterogeneity Using Imaging Mass Spectrometry. J. Pathol. 2015, 235, 3-13.
12. Shalek, A. K.; Satija, R.; Shuga, J.; et al. Single-Cell RNAseq Reveals Dynamic Paracrine Control of Cellular Variation. Nature. 2014, 510, 363-369.
13. Schwarz, R. F.; Trinh, A.; Sipos, B.; et al. Phylogenetic Quantification of Intra-Tumour Heterogeneity. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003535.
14. 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, 19, 672-684.
15. Loo, L. H.; Lin, H. J.; Steininger, R. J., III; et al. An Approach for Extensibly Profiling the Molecular States of Cellular Subpopulations. Nat. Methods. 2009, 6, 759-765.
16. Spudich, J. L.; Koshland, D. E., Jr. Non-Genetic Individuality:Chance in the Single Cell. Nature. 1976, 262, 467-471.
17. Bhang, H. E.; Ruddy, D. A.; Krishnamurthy Radhakrishna, V.; et al. Studying Clonal Dynamics in Response to Cancer Therapy Using High-Complexity Barcoding. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 440-448.
18. Rubin, H. Early Origin and Pervasiveness of Cellular Heterogeneity in Some Malignant Transformations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1984, 81, 5121-5125.
19. Tan, K. L.; Scott, D. W.; Hong, F.; et al. Tumor-Associated Macrophages Predict Inferior Outcomes in Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Correlative Study from the E2496 Intergroup Trial. Blood. 2012, 120, 3280-3287.
20. Heindl, A.; Nawaz, S.; Yuan, Y. Mapping Spatial Heterogeneity in the Tumor Microenvironment: A New Era for Digital Pathology. Lab. Invest. 2015, 95, 377-384.
21. Spagnolo, D. M.; Gyanchandani, R.; Al-Kofahi, Y.; et al. Pointwise Mutual Information Quantifies Intra-Tumor Heterogeneity in Tissue Sections Labeled with Multiple Fluorescent Biomarkers. J. Pathol. Inform., in press.
22. Critchley-Thorne, R. J.; Miller, S. M.; Taylor, D. L.; et al. Applications of Cellular Systems Biology in Breast Cancer Patient Stratification and Diagnostics. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2009, 12, 860-869.
23. Prichard, J. W.; Davison, J. M.; Campbell, B. B.; et al. TissueCypher(™): A Systems Biology Approach to Anatomic Pathology. J. Pathol. Inform. 2015, 6, 48.
24. Mitchison, T. J. Small-Molecule Screening and Profiling by Using Automated Microscopy. Chembiochem. 2005, 6, 33-39.
25. Giuliano, K. A.; DeBiasio, R. L.; Dunlay, R. T.; et al. High-Content Screening: A New Approach to Easing Key Bottlenecks in the Drug Discovery Process. J. Biomol. Screen. 1997, 2, 249-259.
26. Abraham, V. C.; Taylor, D. L.; Haskins, J. R. High Content Screening Applied to Large-Scale Cell Biology. Trends Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 15-22.
27. Kell, D. B.; Ryder, H. M.; Kaprelyants, A. S.; et al. Quantifying Heterogeneity: Flow Cytometry of Bacterial Cultures. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 1991, 60, 145-158.
28. Davey, H. M.; Kell, D. B. Flow Cytometry and Cell Sorting of Heterogeneous Microbial Populations: The Importance of Single-Cell Analyses. Microbiol. Rev. 1996, 60, 641-696.
29. Edwards, B. S.; Sklar, L. A. Flow Cytometry: Impact on Early Drug Discovery. J. Biomol. Screen. 2015, 20, 689-707.
30. Keller, P. J.; Lin, A. F.; Arendt, L. M.; et al. Mapping the Cellular and Molecular Heterogeneity of Normal and Malignant Breast Tissues and Cultured Cell Lines. Breast Cancer Res. 2010, 12, R87.
31. Khan, I. A.; Lupi, M.; Campbell, L.; et al. Interoperability of Time Series Cytometric Data: A Cross Platform Approach for Modeling Tumor Heterogeneity. Cytometry A. 2011, 79, 214-226.
32. Ambriz-Avina, V.; Contreras-Garduno, J. A.; Pedraza-Reyes, M. Applications of Flow Cytometry to Characterize Bacterial Physiological Responses. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 461941.
33. Patel, A. P.; Tirosh, I.; Trombetta, J. J.; et al. Single-Cell RNA-seq Highlights Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Primary Glioblastoma. Science. 2014, 344, 1396-1401.
34. Wang, D.; Bodovitz, S. Single Cell Analysis: The New Frontier in ‘Omics’. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 281-290.
35. Diercks, A.; Kostner, H.; Ozinsky, A. Resolving Cell Population Heterogeneity: Real-Time PCR for Simultaneous Multiplexed Gene Detection in Multiple Single-Cell Samples. PLoS One 2009, 4, e6326.
36. Buettner, F.; Natarajan, K. N.; Casale, F. P.; et al. Computational Analysis of Cell-to-Cell Heterogeneity in Single-Cell RNA-Sequencing Data Reveals Hidden Subpopulations of Cells. Nat. Biotech. 2015, 33, 155-160.
37. Gough, A.; Shun, T. Y.; Lansing Taylor, D.; et al. A Metric and Workflow for Quality Control in the Analysis of Heterogeneity in Phenotypic Profiles and Screens. Methods 2016, 96, 12-26.
38. Singh, S.; Bray, M. A.; Jones, T. R.; et al. Pipeline for Illumination Correction of Images for High-Throughput Microscopy. J. Microsc. 2014, 256, 231-236.
39. Bray, M.-A.; Fraser, A. N.; Hasaka, T. P.; et al. Workflow and Metrics for Image Quality Control in Large-Scale High-Content Screens. J. Biomol. Screen. 2012, 17, 266-274.
40. Wang, Y.-L.; Taylor, D. L. Fluorescence Microscopy of Living Cells in Culture, Part B: Quantitative Fluorescence Microscopy-Imaging and Spectroscopy, Academic Press: San Diego, 1989, Vol. 30.
41. Wang, Y.-L.; Taylor, D. L. Fluorescence Microscopy of Living Cells in Culture, Part A: Fluorescent Analogs, Labeling Cells, and Basic Microscopy, Academic Press: San Diego, 1988, Vol. 29.
42. Chakravarty, A.; Bowman, D.; Ecsedy, J. A.; et al. Developing Robust High Content Assays. In High Content Screening, John Wiley: New York, 2007, pp. 85-109.
43. Hoffman, R. A. Standardization, Calibration, and Control in Flow Cytometry. Curr. Protoc. Cytom. 2005, Chapter 1, Unit 13.
44. Schwartz, A.; Marti, G. E.; Poon, R.; et al. Standardizing Flow Cytometry: A Classification System of Fluorescence Standards Used for Flow Cytometry. Cytometry. 1998, 33, 106-114.
45. Mittag, A.; Tarnok, A. Basics of Standardization and Calibration in Cytometry-A Review. J. Biophotonics. 2009, 2, 470-481.
46. Alvarez, D. F.; Helm, K.; Degregori, J.; et al. Publishing Flow Cytometry Data. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 2010, 298, L127-L130.
47. Aghaeepour, N.; Finak, G.; Hoos, H.; et al. Critical Assessment of Automated Flow Cytometry Data Analysis Techniques. Nat. Methods. 2013, 10, 228-238.
48. Aghaeepour, N.; Jalali, A.; O’Neill, K.; et al. RchyOptimyx:Cellular Hierarchy Optimization for Flow Cytometry. Cytometry A. 2012, 81, 1022-1030.
49. O’Neill, K.; Jalali, A.; Aghaeepour, N.; et al. Enhanced flow-Type/RchyOptimyx: A BioConductor Pipeline for Discovery in High-Dimensional Cytometry Data. Bioinformatics. 2014, 30, 1329-1330.
50. Brinkman, R. R.; Aghaeepour, N.; Finak, G.; et al. Automated Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data Comes of Age. Cytometry A. 2016, 89, 13-15.
51. Van Gassen, S.; Vens, C.; Dhaene, T.; et al. FloReMi:Flow Density Survival Regression Using Minimal Feature Redundancy. Cytometry A. 2016, 89, 22-29.
52. 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, 67-73.
53. Zhang, X. D. A Pair of New Statistical Parameters for Quality Control in RNA Interference High-Throughput Screening Assays. Genomics. 2007, 89, 552-561.
54. Lilliefors, H. W. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1967, 62, 399-402.
55. Basak, S.; Behar, M.; Hoffmann, A. Lessons from Mathematically Modeling the NF-κB Pathway. Immunol. Rev. 2012, 246, 221-238.
56. Lee, Robin E.C.; Walker, Sarah R.; Savery, K.; et al. Fold Change of Nuclear NF-κB Determines TNF-Induced Transcription in Single Cells. Mol. Cell. 2014, 53, 867-879.
57. Cohen, A. A.; Geva-Zatorsky, N.; Eden, E.; et al. Dynamic Proteomics of Individual Cancer Cells in Response to a Drug. Science. 2008, 322, 1511-1516.
58. Sisan, D. R.; Halter, M.; Hubbard, J. B.; et al. Predicting Rates of Cell State Change Caused by Stochastic Fluctuations Using a Data-Driven Landscape Model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, 19262-19267.
59. Chen, F.; Zhuang, X.; Lin, L.; et al. New Horizons in Tumor Microenvironment Biology: Challenges and Opportunities. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 45.
60. Lloyd, M. C.; Cunningham, J. J.; Bui, M. M.; et al. Darwinian Dynamics of Intratumoral Heterogeneity: Not Solely Random Mutations but Also Variable Environmental Selection Forces. Cancer Res. 2016, 76, 3136-3144.
61. Slack, M. D.; Martinez, E. D.; Wu, L. F.; et al. Characterizing Heterogeneous Cellular Responses to Perturbations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105, 19306-19311.
62. Gascoigne, K. E.; Taylor, S. S. Cancer Cells Display Profound Intra-and Interline Variation following Prolonged Exposure to Antimitotic Drugs. Cancer Cell. 2008, 14, 111-122.
63. Toriello, N. M.; Douglas, E. S.; Thaitrong, N.; et al. Integrated Microfluidic Bioprocessor for Single-Cell Gene Expression Analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105, 20173-20178.
64. Snijder, B.; Pelkmans, L. Origins of Regulated Cell-to-Cell Variability. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12, 119-125.
65. Altschuler, S. J.; Wu, L. F. Cellular Heterogeneity: When Do Differences Make a Difference? Cell 2010, 141, 559-563.
66. Chang, H. H.; Hemberg, M.; Barahona, M.; et al. Transcriptome-Wide Noise Controls Lineage Choice in Mammalian Progenitor Cells. Nature. 2008, 453, 544-547.
67. Wu, J.; Tzanakakis, E. S. Deconstructing Stem Cell Population Heterogeneity: Single-Cell Analysis and Modeling Approaches. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 1047-1062.
68. Singh, D. K.; Ku, C. J.; Wichaidit, C.; et al. Patterns of Basal Signaling Heterogeneity Can Distinguish Cellular Populations with Different Drug Sensitivities. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2010, 6, 369.
69. Gerdes, M. J.; Sood, A.; Sevinsky, C.; et al. Emerging Understanding of Multiscale Tumor Heterogeneity. Front. Oncol. 2014, 4, 366.
70. Tawfik, D. S. Messy Biology and the Origins of Evolutionary Innovations. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6, 692-696.
71. Meacham, C. E.; Morrison, S. J. Tumour Heterogeneity and Cancer Cell Plasticity. Nature. 2013, 501, 328-337.
72. Tabassum, D. P.; Polyak, K. Tumorigenesis: It Takes a Village. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2015, 15, 473-483.
73. Janiszewska, M.; Liu, L.; Almendro, V.; et al. In Situ Single-Cell Analysis Identifies Heterogeneity for PIK3CA Mutation and HER2 Amplification in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 1212-1219.
74. Marusyk, A.; Tabassum, D. P.; Altrock, P. M.; et al. Non-Cell-Autonomous Driving of Tumour Growth Supports Sub-Clonal Heterogeneity. Nature. 2014, 514, 54-58.
75. Almendro, V.; Cheng, Y. K.; Randles, A.; et al. Inference of Tumor Evolution during Chemotherapy by Computational Modeling and In Situ Analysis of Genetic and Phenotypic Cellular Diversity. Cell Rep. 2014, 6, 514-527.
76. Potts, S. J.; Krueger, J. S.; Landis, N. D.; et al. Evaluating Tumor Heterogeneity in Immunohistochemistry-Stained Breast Cancer Tissue. Lab. Invest. 2012, 92, 1342-1357.
77. Gerdes, M. J.; Sevinsky, C. J.; Sood, A.; et al. Highly Multiplexed Single-Cell Analysis of Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Cancer Tissue. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110, 11982-11987.
78. Lawson, D. A.; Bhakta, N. R.; Kessenbrock, K.; et al. Single-Cell Analysis Reveals a Stem-Cell Program in Human Metastatic Breast Cancer Cells. Nature. 2015, 526, 131-135.
79. Abraham, V. C.; Samson, B.; Lapets, O.; et al. Automated Classification of Individual Cellular Responses across Multiple Targets. Preclinica. 2004, 2, 349-355.
80. Stilwell, J. L.; Guan, Y.; Neve, R. M.; et al. Systems Biology in Cancer Research: Genomics to Cellomics. Methods Mol. Biol. 2007, 356, 353-365.
81. Shi, J.; Orth, J. D.; Mitchison, T. Cell Type Variation in Responses to Antimitotic Drugs That Target Microtubules and Kinesin-5. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 3269-3276.
82. McCann, T. Live Cell Imaging: An Industrial Perspective. Methods Mol. Biol. 2010, 591, 47-66.
83. Pereira, P. M.; Almada, P.; Henriques, R. High-Content 3D Multicolor Super-Resolution Localization Microscopy. In Methods in Cell Biology, Ewa, K. P., ed.; Academic Press:New York, 2015, pp. 95-117.
84. Legant, W. R.; Shao, L.; Grimm, J. B.; et al. High-Density Three-Dimensional Localization Microscopy across Large Volumes. Nat. Methods. 2016, 13, 359-365.
85. Taylor, D. L. Past, Present, and Future of High Content Screening and the Field of Cellomics. Methods Mol. Biol. 2007, 356, 3-18.
86. LaPan, P.; Zhang, J.; Pan, J.; et al. Single Cell Cytometry of Protein Function in RNAi Treated Cells and in Native Populations. BMC Cell Biol. 2008, 9, 43.
87. Bright, G. R.; Whitaker, J. E.; Haugland, R. P.; et al. Heterogeneity of the Changes in Cytoplasmic pH upon Serum Stimulation of Quiescent Fibroblasts. J. Cell Physiol. 1989, 141, 410-419.
88. Loo, L. H.; Lin, H. J.; Singh, D. K.; et al. Heterogeneity in the Physiological States and Pharmacological Responses of Differentiating 3T3-L1 Preadipocytes. J. Cell Biol. 2009, 187, 375-384.
89. Racoceanu, D.; Belhomme, P. Breakthrough Technologies in Digital Pathology. Comput. Med Imaging Graph. 2015, 42, 1.
90. Nederlof, M.; Watanabe, S.; Burnip, B.; et al. High-Throughput Profiling of Tissue and Tissue Model Microarrays: Combined Transmitted Light and 3-Color Fluorescence Digital Pathology. J. Pathol. Inform. 2011, 2, 50.
91. McCabe, A.; Dolled-Filhart, M.; Camp, R. L.; et al. Automated Quantitative Analysis (AQUA) of In Situ Protein Expression, Antibody Concentration, and Prognosis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2005, 97, 1808-1815.
92. Lee, J. H.; Daugharthy, E. R.; Scheiman, J.; et al. Highly Multiplexed Subcellular RNA Sequencing In Situ. Science 2014, 343, 1360-1363.
93. Giesen, C.; Wang, H. A.; Schapiro, D.; et al. Highly Multiplexed Imaging of Tumor Tissues with Subcellular Resolution by Mass Cytometry. Nat. Methods. 2014, 11, 417-422.
94. Lin, J. R.; Fallahi-Sichani, M.; Sorger, P. K. Highly Multiplexed Imaging of Single Cells Using a High-Throughput Cyclic Immunofluorescence Method. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8390.
95. Weaver, E. M.; Hummon, A. B. Imaging Mass Spectrometry:From Tissue Sections to Cell Cultures. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013, 65, 1039-1055.
96. Aichler, M.; Walch, A. MALDI Imaging Mass Spectrometry:Current Frontiers and Perspectives in Pathology Research and Practice. Lab. Invest. 2015, 95, 422-431.
97. Lanni, E. J.; Rubakhin, S. S.; Sweedler, J. V. Mass Spectrometry Imaging and Profiling of Single Cells. J. Proteomics. 2012, 75, 5036-5051.
98. Bodzon-Kulakowska, A.; Suder, P. Imaging Mass Spectrometry: Instrumentation, Applications, and Combination with Other Visualization Techniques. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2016, 35, 147-169.
99. Passarelli, M. K.; Ewing, A. G. Single-Cell Imaging Mass Spectrometry. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2013, 17, 854-859.
100. Zavalin, A.; Todd, E. M.; Rawhouser, P. D.; et al. Direct Imaging of Single Cells and Tissue at Sub-Cellular Spatial Resolution Using Transmission Geometry MALDI MS. J. Mass Spectrom. 2012, 47, i.
101. Seeley, E. H.; Caprioli, R. M. 3D Imaging by Mass Spectrometry: A New Frontier. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 2105-2110.
102. Angelo, M.; Bendall, S. C.; Finck, R.; et al. Multiplexed Ion Beam Imaging of Human Breast Tumors. Nat. Med. 2014, 20, 436-442.
103. Bodenmiller, B. Multiplexed Epitope-Based Tissue Imaging for Discovery and Healthcare Applications. Cell Syst. 2016, 2, 225-238.
104. Bendall, S. C.; Davis, K. L.; Amir el, A. D.; et al. Single-Cell Trajectory Detection Uncovers Progression and Regulatory Coordination in Human B Cell Development. Cell. 2014, 157, 714-725.
105. Spitzer, M. H.; Nolan, G. P. Mass Cytometry: Single Cells, Many Features. Cell. 2016, 165, 780-791.
106. Levenson, R. M.; Borowsky, A. D.; Angelo, M. Immunohistochemistry and Mass Spectrometry for Highly Multiplexed Cellular Molecular Imaging. Lab. Invest. 2015, 95, 397-405.
107. Mao, X.; He, J.; Li, T.; et al. Application of Imaging Mass Spectrometry for the Molecular Diagnosis of Human Breast Tumors. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21043.
108. Jones, E. A.; van Remoortere, A.; van Zeijl, R. J. M.; et al. Multiple Statistical Analysis Techniques Corroborate Intratumor Heterogeneity in Imaging Mass Spectrometry Datasets of Myxofibrosarcoma. PLoS One 2011, 6, e24913.
109. Tata, A.; Zheng, J.; Ginsberg, H. J.; et al. Contrast Agent Mass Spectrometry Imaging Reveals Tumor Heterogeneity. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 7683-7689.
110. Thompson, C. G.; Bokhart, M. T.; Sykes, C.; et al. Mass Spectrometry Imaging Reveals Heterogeneous Efavirenz Distribution within Putative HIV Reservoirs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 2944-2948.
111. Perfetto, S. P.; Chattopadhyay, P. K.; Roederer, M. Seventeen-Colour Flow Cytometry: Unravelling the Immune System. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4, 648-655.
112. Bendall, S. C.; Nolan, G. P.; Roederer, M.; et al. A Deep Profiler’s Guide to Cytometry. Trends Immunol. 2012, 33, 323-332.
113. Bodenmiller, B.; Zunder, E. R.; Finck, R.; et al. Multiplexed Mass Cytometry Profiling of Cellular States Perturbed by Small-Molecule Regulators. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 858-867.
114. Hines, W. C.; Su, Y.; Kuhn, I.; et al. Sorting Out the FACS:A Devil in the Details. Cell Rep. 2014, 6, 779-781.
115. Trapnell, C. Defining Cell Types and States with Single-Cell Genomics. Genome Res. 2015, 25, 1491-1498.
116. Nakamura, T.; Yabuta, Y.; Okamoto, I.; et al. SC3-seq: A Method for Highly Parallel and Quantitative Measurement of Single-Cell Gene Expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, e60.
117. Macosko, E. Z.; Basu, A.; Satija, R.; et al. Highly Parallel Genome-Wide Expression Profiling of Individual Cells Using Nanoliter Droplets. Cell. 2015, 161, 1202-1214.
118. Guo, H.; Zhu, P.; Wu, X.; et al. Single-Cell Methylome Landscapes of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells and Early Embryos Analyzed Using Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing. Genome Res. 2013, 23, 2126-2135.
119. Smallwood, S. A.; Lee, H. J.; Angermueller, C.; et al. Single-Cell Genome-Wide Bisulfite Sequencing for Assessing Epigenetic Heterogeneity. Nat. Methods. 2014, 11, 817-820.
120. Jin, W.; Tang, Q.; Wan, M.; et al. Genome-Wide Detection of DNase I Hypersensitive Sites in Single Cells and FFPE Tissue Samples. Nature. 2015, 528, 142-146.
121. Cusanovich, D. A.; Daza, R.; Adey, A.; et al. Multiplex Single-Cell Profiling of Chromatin Accessibility by Combinatorial Cellular Indexing. Science. 2015, 348, 910-914.
122. Buenrostro, J. D.; Wu, B.; Litzenburger, U. M.; et al. Single-Cell Chromatin Accessibility Reveals Principles of Regulatory Variation. Nature. 2015, 523, 486-490.
123. Lu, Y.; Xue, Q.; Eisele, M. R.; et al. Highly Multiplexed Profiling of Single-Cell Effector Functions Reveals Deep Functional Heterogeneity in Response to Pathogenic Ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, E607-E615.
124. Onjiko, R. M.; Moody, S. A.; Nemes, P. Single-Cell Mass Spectrometry Reveals Small Molecules That Affect Cell Fates in the 16-Cell Embryo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, 6545-6550.
125. Simpson, E. H. The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B. 1951, 13, 238-241.
126. Stegle, O.; Teichmann, S. A.; Marioni, J. C. Computational and Analytical Challenges in Single-Cell Transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2015, 16, 133-145.
127. Trapnell, C.; Cacchiarelli, D.; Grimsby, J.; et al. The Dynamics and Regulators of Cell Fate Decisions Are Revealed by Pseudotemporal Ordering of Single Cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 381-386.
128. Schissler, A. G.; Li, Q.; Chen, J. L.; et al. Analysis of Aggregated Cell-Cell Statistical Distances within Pathways Unveils Therapeutic-Resistance Mechanisms in Circulating Tumor Cells. Bioinformatics 2016, 32, i80-i89.
129. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2015.
130. Yule, G. U. An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. Charles Griffin and Company: London, UK, 1911.
131. Barnett, V.; Lewis, T. Outliers in Statistical Data, John Wiley: New York, 1994, 3rd ed.
132. Shannon, C. E.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 1949.
133. Simpson, E. H. Measurement of Diversity. Nature. 1949, 163, 688-688.
134. Rao, C. R. Diversity and Dissimilarity Coefficients-A Unified Approach. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1982, 21, 24-43.
135. Razali, N. M.; Wah, Y. B. Power Comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests. J. Stat. Model. Anal. 2011, 2, 13.
136. Fallahi-Sichani, M.; Honarnejad, S.; Heiser, L. M.; et al. Metrics Other Than Potency Reveal Systematic Variation in Responses to Cancer Drugs. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2013, 9, 708-714.
137. University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute (UPDDI). upddi.pitt.edu. Accessed July 8, 2016.
138. Dinov, I. D. Methodological Challenges and Analytic Opportunities for Modeling and Interpreting Big Healthcare Data. Gigascience. 2016, 5, 12.
139. Hintze, J. L.; Nelson, R. D. Violin Plots: A Box Plot-Density Trace Synergism. Am. Stat. 1998, 52, 181-184.
140. Kiviet, D. J.; Nghe, P.; Walker, N.; et al. Stochasticity of Metabolism and Growth at the Single-Cell Level. Nature 2014, 514, 376-379.
141. Spiller, D. G.; Wood, C. D.; Rand, D. A.; et al. Measurement of Single-Cell Dynamics. Nature. 2010, 465, 736-745.
142. Haney, S. A. Factoring and Clustering High Content Data. In An Introduction to High Content Screening, John Wiley:New York, 2014, pp. 211-229.
143. 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, 557-568.
144. Giuliano, K. A.; Cheung, W. S.; Curran, D. P.; et al. Systems Cell Biology Knowledge Created from High Content Screening. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 2005, 3, 501-514.
145. Perlman, Z. E.; Slack, M. D.; Feng, Y.; et al. Multidimensional Drug Profiling by Automated Microscopy. Science. 2004, 306, 1194-1198.
146. Boland, M. V.; Murphy, R. F. A Neural Network Classifier Capable of Recognizing the Patterns of All Major Subcellular Structures in Fluorescence Microscope Images of HeLa Cells. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17, 1213-1223.
147. Loo, L. H.; Wu, L. F.; Altschuler, S. J. Image-Based Multivariate Profiling of Drug Responses from Single Cells. Nat. Methods. 2007, 4, 445-453.
148. van der Maaten, L.; Hinton, G. Visualizing Data Using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008, 9, 2579-2605.
149. van der Maaten, L. Accelerating t-SNE Using Tree-Based Algorithms. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 3221-3245.
150. Low, J.; Huang, S.; Blosser, W.; et al. High-Content Imaging Characterization of Cell Cycle Therapeutics through In Vitro and In Vivo Subpopulation Analysis. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2008, 7, 2455-2463.
151. Naik, A. W.; Kangas, J. D.; Sullivan, D. P.; et al. Active Machine Learning-Driven Experimentation to Determine Compound Effects on Protein Patterns. Elife 2016, 5, e10047.
152. Harrison, P. M.; Badel, L.; Wall, M. J.; et al. Experimentally Verified Parameter Sets for Modelling Heterogeneous Neocortical Pyramidal-Cell Populations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2015, 11, e1004165.
153. Gupta, P. B.; Fillmore, C. M.; Jiang, G.; et al. Stochastic State Transitions Give Rise to Phenotypic Equilibrium in Populations of Cancer Cells. Cell. 2011, 146, 633-644.
154. Hasenauer, J.; Heinrich, J.; Doszczak, M.; et al. A Visual Analytics Approach for Models of Heterogeneous Cell Populations. EURASIP J. Bioinform. Syst. Biol. 2012, 2012, 4.
155. Gentleman, R. C.; Carey, V. J.; Bates, D. M.; et al. Bioconductor: Open Software Development for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 2004, 5, R80.
156. Lee, K.; Hahne, F.; Sarkar, D.; et al. iFlow: A Graphical User Interface for Flow Cytometry Tools in Bioconductor. Adv. Bioinformatics. 2009, 2009, 103839.
157. Finak, G.; Frelinger, J.; Jiang, W.; et al. OpenCyto: An Open Source Infrastructure for Scalable, Robust, Reproducible, and Automated, End-to-End Flow Cytometry Data Analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003806.
158. Friedman, J.; Yurtsev, E. FlowCytometryTools v0.4.5, a Python Package for Visualization and Analysis of High-Throughput Flow Cytometry Data. http://eyurtsev.github.io/FlowCytometryTools/. Accessed June 14, 2016.
159. Jones, T. R.; Kang, I. H.; Wheeler, D. B.; et al. CellProfiler Analyst: Data Exploration and Analysis Software for Complex Image-Based Screens. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008, 9, 1-16.
160. Ogier, A.; Dorval, T. HCS-Analyzer: Open Source Software for High-Content Screening Data Correction and Analysis. Bioinformatics. 2012, 28, 1945-1946.
161. Stoter, M.; Niederlein, A.; Barsacchi, R.; et al. CellProfiler and KNIME: Open Source Tools for High Content Screening. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 986, 105-122.
162. Allan, C.; Burel, J. M.; Moore, J.; et al. OMERO: Flexible, Model-Driven Data Management for Experimental Biology. Nat. Methods. 2012, 9, 245-253.
163. Amir, E.-a. D.; Davis, K. L.; Tadmor, M. D.; et al. viSNE Enables Visualization of High Dimensional Single-Cell Data and Reveals Phenotypic Heterogeneity of Leukemia. Nat. Biotech. 2013, 31, 545-552.
164. Diggins, K. E.; Ferrell, P. B., Jr.; Irish, J. M. Methods for Discovery and Characterization of Cell Subsets in High Dimensional Mass Cytometry Data. Methods. 2015, 82, 55-63.
165. Burrell, R. A.; McGranahan, N.; Bartek, J.; et al. The Causes and Consequences of Genetic Heterogeneity in Cancer Evolution. Nature. 2013, 501, 338-345.
166. Batchelor, E.; Kann, M. G.; Przytycka, T. M.; Raphael, B. J.; Wojtowicz, D.; eds. Modeling Cell Heterogeneity: From Single-Cell Variations to Mixed Cells. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2013; 2013; Kohala Coast, HI.
167. Caie, P. D.; Walls, R. E.; Ingleston-Orme, A.; et al. High-Content Phenotypic Profiling of Drug Response Signatures across Distinct Cancer Cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2010, 9, 1913-1926.
168. Johnston, R. L.; Wockner, L.; McCart Reed, A. E.; et al. High Content Screening Application for Cell-Type Specific Behaviour in Heterogeneous Primary Breast Epithelial Subpopulations. Breast Cancer Res. 2016, 18, 18.
169. Niepel, M.; Spencer, S. L.; Sorger, P. K. Non-Genetic Cellto-Cell Variability and the Consequences for Pharmacology. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2009, 13, 556-561.
170. Chung, G. G.; Zerkowski, M. P.; Ghosh, S.; et al. Quantitative Analysis of Estrogen Receptor Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer. Lab. Invest. 2007, 87, 662-669.
171. Alizadeh, A. A.; Aranda, V.; Bardelli, A.; et al. Toward Understanding and Exploiting Tumor Heterogeneity. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 846-853.
172. Balkwill, F. R.; Capasso, M.; Hagemann, T. The Tumor Microenvironment at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2012, 125, 5591-5596.
173. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. Cell. 2011, 144, 646-674.
174. Waclaw, B.; Bozic, I.; Pittman, M. E.; et al. A Spatial Model Predicts That Dispersal and Cell Turnover Limit Intratumour Heterogeneity. Nature. 2015, 525, 261-264.
175. Gerlinger, M.; Rowan, A. J.; Horswell, S.; et al. Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 883-892.
176. Kumar, A.; Boyle, E. A.; Tokita, M.; et al. Deep Sequencing of Multiple Regions of Glial Tumors Reveals Spatial Heterogeneity for Mutations in Clinically Relevant Genes. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 530.
177. Govindan, R. Cancer. Attack of the Clones. Science. 2014, 346, 169-170.
178. Bashashati, A.; Ha, G.; Tone, A.; et al. Distinct Evolutionary Trajectories of Primary High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancers Revealed through Spatial Mutational Profiling. J. Pathol. 2013, 231, 21-34.
179. Yates, L. R.; Gerstung, M.; Knappskog, S.; et al. Subclonal Diversification of Primary Breast Cancer Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 751-759.
180. Rivenbark, A. G.; O’Connor, S. M.; Coleman, W. B. Molecular and Cellular Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer:Challenges for Personalized Medicine. Am. J. Pathol. 2013, 183, 1113-1124.
181. Sugihara, Y.; Taniguchi, H.; Kushima, R.; et al. Laser Microdissection and Two-Dimensional Difference Gel Electrophoresis Reveal Proteomic Intra-Tumor Heterogeneity in Colorectal Cancer. J. Proteomics. 2013, 78, 134-147.
182. Navin, N.; Kendall, J.; Troge, J.; et al. Tumour Evolution Inferred by Single-Cell Sequencing. Nature. 2011, 472, 90-94.
183. Wang, Y.; Waters, J.; Leung, M. L.; et al. Clonal Evolution in Breast Cancer Revealed by Single Nucleus Genome Sequencing. Nature. 2014, 512, 155-160.
184. Irish, J. M.; Hovland, R.; Krutzik, P. O.; et al. Single Cell Profiling of Potentiated Phospho-Protein Networks in Cancer Cells. Cell. 2004, 118, 217-228.
185. Camp, R. L.; Chung, G. G.; Rimm, D. L. Automated Subcellular Localization and Quantification of Protein Expression in Tissue Microarrays. Nat. Med. 2002, 8, 1323-1328.
186. Chung, G. G.; Zerkowski, M. P.; Ghosh, S.; et al. Quantitative Analysis of Estrogen Receptor Heterogeneity in Breast Cancer. Lab. Invest. 2007, 87, 662-669.
187. Salo, T.; Vered, M.; Bello, I. O.; et al. Insights into the Role of Components of the Tumor Microenvironment in Oral Carcinoma Call for New Therapeutic Approaches. Exp. Cell Res. 2014, 325, 58-64.
188. Church, K. H. H., Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography. Comp. Linguistics 1990, 16, 22-29.
189. Role, F. N. M. In Handling the Impact of Low Frequency Events on Co-Occurrence-Based Measures of Word Similarity: A Case Study of Pointwise Mutual Information, International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval Paris, France, Paris, France, 2011.
190. Lee, J. H.; Daugharthy, E. R.; Scheiman, J.; et al. Fluorescent In Situ Sequencing (FISSEQ) of RNA for Gene Expression Profiling in Intact Cells and Tissues. Nat Protoc. 2015, 10, 442-458.
191. Clarke, G. M.; Zubovits, J. T.; Shaikh, K. A.; et al. A Novel, Automated Technology for Multiplex Biomarker Imaging and Application to Breast Cancer. Histopathology. 2014, 64, 242-255.
192. Durruthy-Durruthy, R.; Gottlieb, A.; Hartman, B. H.; et al. Reconstruction of the Mouse Otocyst and Early Neuroblast Lineage at Single-Cell Resolution. Cell. 2014, 157, 964-978.
193. Achim, K.; Pettit, J. B.; Saraiva, L. R.; et al. High-Throughput Spatial Mapping of Single-Cell RNA-seq Data to Tissue of Origin. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 503-509.
194. Satija, R.; Farrell, J. A.; Gennert, D.; et al. Spatial Reconstruction of Single-Cell Gene Expression Data. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 495-502.
195. Lubeck, E.; Cai, L. Single-Cell Systems Biology by Super-Resolution Imaging and Combinatorial Labeling. Nat. Methods. 2012, 9, 743-748.
196. Chen, K. H.; Boettiger, A. N.; Moffitt, J. R.; et al. RNA Imaging: Spatially Resolved, Highly Multiplexed RNA Profiling in Single Cells. Science 2015, 348 (6233). dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6090.
197. Stahl, P. L.; Salmen, F.; Vickovic, S.; et al. Visualization and Analysis of Gene Expression in Tissue Sections by Spatial Transcriptomics. Science. 2016, 353, 78-82.
198. Tetteh, P. W.; Farin, H. F.; Clevers, H. Plasticity within Stem Cell Hierarchies in Mammalian Epithelia. Trends Cell Biol. 2015, 25, 100-108.
199. Barker, N.; van Es, J. H.; Kuipers, J.; et al. Identification of Stem Cells in Small Intestine and Colon by Marker Gene Lgr5. Nature. 2007, 449, 1003-1007.
200. Ritsma, L.; Ellenbroek, S. I.; Zomer, A.; et al. Intestinal Crypt Homeostasis Revealed at Single-Stem-Cell Level by In Vivo Live Imaging. Nature. 2014, 507, 362-365.
201. Bendall, S. C.; Nolan, G. P. From Single Cells to Deep Phenotypes in Cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 639-647.
202. Cahan, P.; Daley, G. Q. Origins and Implications of Pluripotent Stem Cell Variability and Heterogeneity. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14, 357-368.
203. 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.
204. Simons, B. D.; Clevers, H. Strategies for Homeostatic Stem Cell Self-Renewal in Adult Tissues. Cell. 2011, 145, 851-862.
205. Greulich, P.; Simons, B. D. Dynamic Heterogeneity as a Strategy of Stem Cell Self-Renewal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 7509-7514.
206. Clevers, H. The Intestinal Crypt, a Prototype Stem Cell Compartment. Cell. 2013, 154, 274-284.
207. Hara, K.; Nakagawa, T.; Enomoto, H.; et al. Mouse Spermatogenic Stem Cells Continually Interconvert between Equipotent Singly Isolated and Syncytial States. Cell Stem Cell. 2014, 14, 658-672.
208. Rompolas, P.; Greco, V. Stem Cell Dynamics in the Hair Follicle Niche. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014, 25-26, 34-42.
209. Scadden, D. T. The Stem-Cell Niche as an Entity of Action. Nature. 2006, 441, 1075-1079.
210. Barker, N. Adult Intestinal Stem Cells: Critical Drivers of Epithelial Homeostasis and Regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014, 15, 19-33.
211. Balaban, N. Q.; Merrin, J.; Chait, R.; et al. Bacterial Persistence as a Phenotypic Switch. Science. 2004, 305, 1622-1625.
212. Munsky, B.; Neuert, G.; van Oudenaarden, A. Using Gene Expression Noise to Understand Gene Regulation. Science 2012, 336, 183-187.
213. Ooi, H. K.; Ma, L. Modeling Heterogeneous Responsiveness of Intrinsic Apoptosis Pathway. BMC Syst. Biol. 2013, 7, 65.
214. De Smet, R.; Marchal, K. Advantages and Limitations of Current Network Inference Methods. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 717-729.
215. Borisov, N. M.; Markevich, N. I.; Hoek, J. B.; et al. Signaling through Receptors and Scaffolds: Independent Interactions Reduce Combinatorial Complexity. Biophys. J. 2005, 89, 951-966.
216. Schaber, J.; Klipp, E. Model-Based Inference of Biochemical Parameters and Dynamic Properties of Microbial Signal Transduction Networks. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2011, 22, 109-116.
217. Taylor, I. W.; Linding, R.; Warde-Farley, D.; et al. Dynamic Modularity in Protein Interaction Networks Predicts Breast Cancer Outcome. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 199-204.
218. Kirouac, D. C.; Saez-Rodriguez, J.; Swantek, J.; et al. Creating and Analyzing Pathway and Protein Interaction Compendia for Modelling Signal Transduction Networks. BMC Syst. Biol. 2012, 6, 29.
219. Eydgahi, H.; Chen, W. W.; Muhlich, J. L.; et al. Properties of Cell Death Models Calibrated and Compared Using Bayesian Approaches. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2013, 9, 644.
220. Spencer, S. L.; Gaudet, S.; Albeck, J. G.; et al. Non-Genetic Origins of Cell-to-Cell Variability in TRAIL-Induced Apoptosis. Nature. 2009, 459, 428-432.
221. Fu, F.; Nowak, M. A.; Bonhoeffer, S. Spatial Heterogeneity in Drug Concentrations Can Facilitate the Emergence of Resistance to Cancer Therapy. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2015, 11, e1004142.
222. Wells, D. K.; Chuang, Y.; Knapp, L. M.; et al. Spatial and Functional Heterogeneities Shape Collective Behavior of Tumor-Immune Networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2015, 11, e1004181.
223. Li, H. J.; Reinhardt, F.; Herschman, H. R.; et al. Cancer-Stimulated Mesenchymal Stem Cells Create a Carcinoma Stem Cell Niche via Prostaglandin E2 Signaling. Cancer Discov. 2012, 2, 840-855.
224. Garraway, L. A.; Janne, P. A. Circumventing Cancer Drug Resistance in the Era of Personalized Medicine. Cancer Discov. 2012, 2, 214-226.
225. Zhao, B.; Pritchard, J. R.; Lauffenburger, D. A.; et al. Addressing Genetic Tumor Heterogeneity through Computationally Predictive Combination Therapy. Cancer Discov. 2014, 4, 166-174.
226. Pritchard, J. R.; Bruno, P. M.; Gilbert, L. A.; et al. Defining Principles of Combination Drug Mechanisms of Action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110, E170-E179.
227. Dawson, J. C.; Carragher, N. O. Quantitative Phenotypic and Pathway Profiling Guides Rational Drug Combination Strategies. Front. Pharmacol. 2014, 5, 118.
228. Inda, M. M.; Bonavia, R.; Mukasa, A.; et al. Tumor Heterogeneity Is an Active Process Maintained by a Mutant EGFR-Induced Cytokine Circuit in Glioblastoma. Genes Dev. 2010, 24, 1731-1745.
229. Eirew, P.; Steif, A.; Khattra, J.; et al. Dynamics of Genomic Clones in Breast Cancer Patient Xenografts at Single-Cell Resolution. Nature. 2015, 518, 422-426.
230. de Smith, M. Statistical Analysis Handbook. http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html. Accessed September 17, 2016.
231. NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm. Accessed September 17, 2016.
232. Almendro, V.; Kim, H. J.; Cheng, Y. K.; et al. Genetic and Phenotypic Diversity in Breast Tumor Metastases. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 1338-1348.
233. Rose, C. J.; Mills, S. J.; O’Connor, J. P.; et al. Quantifying Spatial Heterogeneity in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Parameter Maps. Magn. Reson. Med. 2009, 62, 488-499.
234. Schwarz, R. F.; Ng, C. K.; Cooke, S. L.; et al. Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Phylogenetic Analysis. PLoS Med. 2015, 12, e1001789.
235. Saadatpour, A.; Guo, G.; Orkin, S. H.; et al. Characterizing Heterogeneity in Leukemic Cells Using Single-Cell Gene Expression Analysis. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 525.