How Not To Drown in Data: A Guide for Biomaterial Engineers

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 743-755

  Vasilevich, Aliaksei S ^a   Carlier, Aurélie ^a   de Boer, Jan ^a   Singh, Shantanu ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b BROAD INSTITUTE OF MIT AND HARVARD   (United States)

Author keywords

biomaterials; in silico screening; machine learning; modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; EDUCATION; GENE EXPRESSION; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MODELS;

CELL-MATERIAL INTERACTION; CELLULAR RESPONSE; COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION; HIGH-THROUGHPUT ASSAYS; IN-SILICO SCREENING; MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES; MATERIAL FABRICATION; MATERIAL INTERACTIONS;

BIOMATERIALS;

BIOMATERIAL;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; AUTOMATION; BONE DEVELOPMENT; BONE REGENERATION; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL SHAPE; CELL STRUCTURE; CLASSIFIER; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELASTICITY; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE IDENTIFICATION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MACHINE LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; MICROENVIRONMENT; MINIATURIZATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PARTICLE SIZE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REVIEW; SOFTWARE; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; UNSUPERVISED MACHINE LEARNING; ANIMAL; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; CHEMISTRY; DEVICES; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL;

EID: 85021745740     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.05.007     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Barthes, J., et al. Cell microenvironment engineering and monitoring for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: the recent advances. BioMed. Res. Int., 2014, 2014, 921905.
2. Murphy, W.L., et al. Materials as stem cell regulators. Nat. Mater. 13 (2014), 547–557.
3. Discher, D.E., et al. Growth factors, matrices, and forces combine and control stem cells. Science 324 (2009), 1673–1677.
4. Dorland, W.A.N., Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. 2007, Saunders.
5. Crowder Spencer, W., et al. Material cues as potent regulators of epigenetics and stem cell function. Cell Stem Cell 18 (2016), 39–52.
6. Feller, L., et al. Cellular responses evoked by different surface characteristics of intraosseous titanium implants. BioMed. Res. Int., 2015, 2015, 171945.
7. Wen, J.H., et al. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat. Mater. 13 (2014), 979–987.
8. Chaudhuri, O., et al. Substrate stress relaxation regulates cell spreading. Nat. Commun., 6, 2015, 6364.
9. Watt, F.M., Huck, W.T., Role of the extracellular matrix in regulating stem cell fate. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14 (2013), 467–473.
10. Subramanian, A., et al. A next generation connectivity map: L1000 Platform and the first 1,000,000 profiles. bioRxiv, 2017, 136168.
11. Qu, X.A., Rajpal, D.K., Applications of Connectivity Map in drug discovery and development. Drug Discov. Today 17 (2012), 1289–1298.
12. Abraham, Y., et al. Multiparametric analysis of screening data: growing beyond the single dimension to infinity and beyond. J. Biomol. Screen. 19 (2014), 628–639.
13. Johannessen, C.M., et al. Integrating phenotypic small-molecule profiling and human genetics: the next phase in drug discovery. Trends Genet. 31 (2015), 16–23.
14. Groen, N., et al. Exploring the material-induced transcriptional landscape of osteoblasts on bone graft materials. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 4 (2015), 1691–1700.
15. Eyckmans, J., et al. Mapping calcium phosphate activated gene networks as a strategy for targeted osteoinduction of human progenitors in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 34 (2013), 4612–4621.
16. Groen, N., et al. Linking the transcriptional landscape of bone induction to biomaterial design parameters. Adv. Mater., 29, 2017, 1603259.
17. Caicedo, J.C., et al. Applications in image-based profiling of perturbations. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 39 (2016), 134–142.
18. Bray, M.-A., et al. Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Nat. Protoc. 11 (2016), 1757–1774.
19. Angelo, M., et al. Multiplexed ion beam imaging of human breast tumors. Nat. Med. 20 (2014), 436–442.
20. Eliceiri, K.W., et al. Biological imaging software tools. Nat Methods 9 (2012), 697–710.
21. Fennema, E., et al. Spheroid culture as a tool for creating 3D complex tissues. Trends Biotechnol. 31 (2013), 108–115.
22. Yuan, H., et al. Osteoinductive ceramics as a synthetic alternative to autologous bone grafting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (2010), 13614–13619.
23. Celiz, A.D., et al. High throughput assessment and chemometric analysis of the interaction of epithelial and fibroblast cells with a polymer library. Appl. Surf. Sci. 313 (2014), 926–935.
24. Sliwoski, G., et al. Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol. Rev. 66 (2014), 334–395.
25. Chow, L.W., Fischer, J.F., Creating biomaterials with spatially organized functionality. Exp. Biol. Med. 241 (2016), 1025–1032, 10.1177/1535370216648023.
26. Urquhart, A.J., et al. High throughput surface characterisation of a combinatorial material library. Adv. Mater. 19 (2007), 2486–2491.
27. Jordan, M.I., Mitchell, T.M., Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349 (2015), 255–260.
28. LeCun, Y., et al. Deep learning. Nature 521 (2015), 436–444.
29. Mitchell, T.M., Machine Learning. 1997, McGraw-Hill.
30. Russell, S.J., Norvig, P., Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2002, Prentice Hall.
31. Lutz, M., Learning Python. 2013, O'Reilly Media.
32. McKinney, W., Python for Data Analysis: Data Wrangling with Pandas, NumPy, and IPython. 2012, O'Reilly Media.
33. Wickham, H., Grolemund, G., R for Data Science. 2016, O'Reilly.
34. Garreta, R., Moncecchi, G., Learning Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python. 2013, Packt Publishing.
35. Kuhn, M., Caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28 (2008), 1–26.
36. Hall, M., et al. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11 (2009), 10–18.
37. Berthold, M.R., et al. KNIME: the Konstanz information miner. Preisach, C., (eds.) Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications, 2008, Springer, 319–326.
38. Hook, A.L., et al. Combinatorial discovery of polymers resistant to bacterial attachment. Nat. Biotechnol. 30 (2012), 868–875.
39. James, G., et al. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. 2013, Springer.
40. 2 capture. J. Phys Chem. Lett. 5 (2014), 3056–3060.
41. Epa, V.C., et al. Modelling human embryoid body cell adhesion to a combinatorial library of polymer surfaces. J. Mater. Chem. 22 (2012), 20902–20906.
42. Autefage, H., et al. Sparse feature selection methods identify unexpected global cellular response to strontium-containing materials. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (2015), 4280–4285.
43. Kumar, G., et al. The determination of stem cell fate by 3D scaffold structures through the control of cell shape. Biomaterials 32 (2011), 9188–9196.
44. Reimer, A., et al. Scalable topographies to support proliferation and Oct4 expression by human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci. Rep., 6, 2016, 18948.
45. Semple, J.L., et al. Review: in vitro, in vivo, in silico: computational systems in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng. 11 (2005), 341–356.
46. Geris, L., Regenerative orthopaedics: in vitro, in vivo… in silico. Int. Orthop. 38 (2014), 1771–1778.
47. Scholma, J., et al. Biological networks 101: computational modeling for molecular biologists. Gene 533 (2014), 379–384.
48. Xiong, F., Megason, S.G., Abstracting the principles of development using imaging and modeling. Integr. Biol. 7 (2015), 633–642.
49. Brodland, G.W., How computational models can help unlock biological systems. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 00 (2015), 62–73.
50. Hecht, F., New development in FreeFem++. J. Numer. Math. 20 (2012), 251–266.
51. Myers, C., SBML and synthetic biology. Nat. Preceed., 2011, 10.1038/npre.2011.6343.1 Published online September 6, 2011.
52. Cooling, M.T., Hunter, P., The CellML metadata framework 2.0 specification. J. Integr. Bioinform. 12 (2015), 86–103.
53. Hunt, B.R., et al. A Guide to MATLAB: For Beginners and Experienced Users. 2014, Cambridge University Press.
54. Lopez, C.F., et al. Programming biological models in Python using PySB. Mol. Syst. Biol., 9, 2013, 646.
55. Loew, L.M., Schaff, J.C., The Virtual Cell: a software environment for computational cell biology. Trends Biotechnol. 19 (2001), 401–406.
56. Swat, M.H., et al. Multi-scale modeling of tissues using CompuCell3D. Methods Cell Biol., 110, 2012, 325.
57. Starruß, J., et al. Morpheus: a user-friendly modeling environment for multiscale and multicellular systems biology. Bioinformatics 30 (2014), 1331–1332.
58. Maas, S.A., et al. FEBio: finite elements for biomechanics. J. Biomech. Eng., 134, 2012, 011005.
59. Saxton, M.J., Jacobson, K., Single-particle tracking: applications to membrane dynamics. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 26 (1997), 373–399.
60. Tang, Y.H., Zhang, H.P., Theoretical understanding of bio-interfaces/bio-surfaces by simulation: a mini review. Biosurf. Biotribol. 2 (2016), 151–161.
61. Baker, M.B., et al. Consequences of chirality on the dynamics of a water-soluble supramolecular polymer. Nat. Commun., 6, 2015, 6234.
62. Giannitelli, S.M., et al. Current trends in the design of scaffolds for computer-aided tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 10 (2014), 580–594.
63. Byrne, D.P., et al. Simulation of tissue differentiation in a scaffold as a function of porosity, Young's modulus and dissolution rate: application of mechanobiological models in tissue engineering. Biomaterials 28 (2007), 5544–5554.
64. Adachi, T., et al. Framework for optimal design of porous scaffold microstructure by computational simulation of bone regeneration. Biomaterials 27 (2006), 3964–3972.
65. Kang, M., et al. Computational modeling of phagocyte transmigration for foreign body responses to subcutaneous biomaterial implants in mice. BMC Bioinform., 17, 2016, 111.
66. Carlier, A., et al. Designing optimal calcium phosphate scaffold–cell combinations using an integrative model-based approach. Acta Biomater. 7 (2011), 3573–3585.
67. Manhas, V., et al. Computational modelling of local calcium ions release from calcium phosphate-based scaffolds. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 16 (2017), 425–438.
68. Meijering, E., et al. Imagining the future of bioimage analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 34 (2016), 1250–1255.
69. Edgar, R., et al. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 30 (2002), 207–210.
70. Williams, E., et al. The Image Data Resource: a scalable platform for biological image data access, integration, and dissemination. bioRxiv, 2016, 089359.
71. Skocik, M., et al. I tried a bunch of things: the dangers of unexpected overfitting in classification. bioRxiv, 2016, 078816.
72. Saeb, S., et al. Voodoo machine learning for clinical predictions. bioRxiv, 2016, 059774.
73. Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L., Convex Optimization. 2004, Cambridge University Press.
74. Draper, N.R., Smith, H., Applied Regression Analysis. 2014, John Wiley & Sons.
75. Jain, A.K., et al. Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput. Surv. 31 (1999), 264–323.
76. Xu, R., Wunsch, D.C. 2nd, Clustering algorithms in biomedical research: a review. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 3 (2010), 120–154.
77. Jolliffe, I.T., Principal Component Analysis. 2013, Springer New York.
78. Guyon, I., et al. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (2003), 1157–1182.
79. Van Der Maaten, L., et al. Dimensionality Reduction: a Comparative Review., 2009, Tilburg University Report No.: 2009–005. Published online October 29, 2009. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/59afb3b8-21a5-4c78-8eb3-6510597382db_TR2009005.pdf.