Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response

Nature

Volumn 560, Issue 7718, 2018, Pages 325-330

  Ben David, Uri ^a   Siranosian, Benjamin ^a   Ha, Gavin ^a,b   Tang, Helen ^a   Oren, Yaara ^a,c   Hinohara, Kunihiko ^a,b   Strathdee, Craig A ^a   Dempster, Joshua ^a   Lyons, Nicholas J ^a   Burns, Robert ^b   Nag, Anwesha ^b   Kugener, Guillaume ^a   Cimini, Beth ^a   Tsvetkov, Peter ^a   Maruvka, Yosef E ^a   O’Rourke, Ryan ^a,b   Garrity, Anthony ^a   Tubelli, Andrew A ^a   Bandopadhayay, Pratiti ^a,b,c   Tsherniak, Aviad ^a   Vazquez, Francisca ^a   Wong, Bang ^a   Birger, Chet ^a   Ghandi, Mahmoud ^a   Thorner, Aaron R ^b   Bittker, Joshua A ^a   Meyerson, Matthew ^a,b,c   Getz, Gad ^a,d   Beroukhim, Rameen ^a,b,c,e   Golub, Todd R ^a,b,c,f   more..

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

^b DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3 (6 BROMO 2 PYRIDINYL) 2 CYANO N (1 PHENYLETHYL)ACRYLAMIDE; 4 AMINO 6 [2 [[4 (DIETHYLAMINO) 1 METHYLBUTYL]AMINO] 6 METHYL 4 PYRIMIDINYL] 2 METHYLQUINOLINE; 5 CHLORO 4 [[2 (ISOPROPYLSULFONYL)PHENYL]AMINO] 2 [[2 METHOXY 4 [4 (4 METHYL 1 PIPERAZINYL) 1 PIPERIDINYL]PHENYL]AMINO]PYRIMIDINE; 7 HYDROXYSTAUROSPORINE; ALSTERPAULLONE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BENZYLOXYCARBONYLLEUCYLLEUCYLLEUCINAL; BORTEZOMIB; CA 4945; CARFILZOMIB; CICLOPIROXOLAMINE; CYTOCHALASIN B; DAUNORUBICIN; DEGUELIN; FEDRATINIB; GLIBENCLAMIDE; MOCETINOSTAT; N (3 AMINOPROPYL) N [1 (3 BENZYL 7 CHLORO 4 OXO 4H CHROMEN 2 YL) 2 METHYLPROPYL] 4 METHYLBENZAMIDE; NIFUROXAZIDE; NIGERICIN; SILMITASERTIB; TANESPIMYCIN; TOPOTECAN; TRICHOSTATIN A; TRICIRIBINE PHOSPHATE; UNINDEXED DRUG; VALINOMYCIN; VINBLASTINE SULFATE; VINCRISTINE; VINORELBINE TARTRATE; VORINOSTAT;

CANCER; CELL COMPONENT; DRUG; GENE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOMICS; INHIBITION; MORPHOLOGY; PROTEIN; RNA;

A-375 CELL LINE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CELL LINE; CANCER INHIBITION; CELL CLONE; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL STRUCTURE; CLONAL VARIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG RESPONSE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME ANALYSIS; HT-29 CELL LINE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MCF-7 CELL LINE; MDA-MB-453 CELL LINE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STRAIN DIFFERENCE; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; BREAST TUMOR; CELL SHAPE; CYTOLOGY; DRUG EFFECT; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; METABOLISM; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL SHAPE; CLONE CELLS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HUMANS; MCF-7 CELLS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

EID: 85051672943     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0409-3     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Sharma, S. V., Haber, D. A. & Settleman, J. Cell line-based platforms to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of candidate anticancer agents. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 241–253 (2010)
2. Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M. & Simcoe, T. S. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002165 (2015)
3. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011)
4. Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603–607 (2012)
5. Garnett, M. J. et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 483, 570–575 (2012)
6. Basu, A. et al. An interactive resource to identify cancer genetic and lineage dependencies targeted by small molecules. Cell 154, 1151–1161 (2013)
7. Yang, W. et al. Genomics of drug sensitivity in cancer (GDSC): a resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D955–D961 (2013)
8. Seashore-Ludlow, B. et al. Harnessing connectivity in a large-scale small-molecule sensitivity dataset. Cancer Discov. 5, 1210–1223 (2015)
9. Haibe-Kains, B. et al. Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature 504, 389–393 (2013)
10. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia & Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer Investigators. Pharmacogenomic agreement between two cancer cell line data sets. Nature 528, 84–87 (2015)
11. Haverty, P. M. et al. Reproducible pharmacogenomic profiling of cancer cell line panels. Nature 533, 333–337 (2016)
12. Soule, H. D., Vazguez, J., Long, A., Albert, S. & Brennan, M. A human cell line from a pleural effusion derived from a breast carcinoma. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 51, 1409–1416 (1973)
13. Brooks, S. C., Locke, E. R. & Soule, H. D. Estrogen receptor in a human cell line (MCF-7) from breast carcinoma. J. Biol. Chem. 248, 6251–6253 (1973)
14. Lee, A. V., Oesterreich, S. & Davidson, N. E. MCF-7 cells–changing the course of breast cancer research and care for 45 years. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107, djv073 (2015)
15. Bamford, S. et al. The COSMIC (catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer) database and website. Br. J. Cancer 91, 355–358 (2004)
16. Subramanian, A. et al. A next generation connectivity map: L1000 platform and the first 1,000,000 profiles. Cell 171, 1437–1452 (2017)
17. Roth, A. et al. PyClone: statistical inference of clonal population structure in cancer. Nat. Methods 11, 396–398 (2014)
18. Eirew, P. et al. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature 518, 422–426 (2015)
19. Bhang, H. E. et al. Studying clonal dynamics in response to cancer therapy using high-complexity barcoding. Nat. Med. 21, 440–448 (2015)
20. Berger, A. H. et al. High-throughput phenotyping of lung cancer somatic mutations. Cancer Cell 30, 214–228 (2016)
21. Peck, D. et al. A method for high-throughput gene expression signature analysis. Genome Biol. 7, R61 (2006)
22. Gupta, P. B. et al. Stochastic state transitions give rise to phenotypic equilibrium in populations of cancer cells. Cell 146, 633–644 (2011)
23. Lieber, M., Smith, B., Szakal, A., Nelson-Rees, W. & Todaro, G. A continuous tumor-cell line from a human lung carcinoma with properties of type II alveolar epithelial cells. Int. J. Cancer 17, 62–70 (1976)
24. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 511, 543–550 (2014)
25. Soule, H. D. et al. Isolation and characterization of a spontaneously immortalized human breast epithelial cell line, MCF-10. Cancer Res. 50, 6075–6086 (1990)
26. Bray, M. A. et al. Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1757–1774 (2016)
27. Liberzon, A. et al. The molecular signatures database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst. 1, 417–425 (2015)
28. Janiszewska, M. et al. In situ single-cell analysis identifies heterogeneity for PIK3CA mutation and HER2 amplification in HER2-positive breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 1212–1219 (2015)
29. Venteicher, A. S. et al. Decoupling genetics, lineages, and microenvironment in IDH-mutant gliomas by single-cell RNA-seq. Science 355, eaai8478 (2017)
30. Bray, M. A., Fraser, A. N., Hasaka, T. P. & Carpenter, A. E. Workflow and metrics for image quality control in large-scale high-content screens. J. Biomol. Screen. 17, 266–274 (2012)
31. Dao, D. et al. CellProfiler Analyst: interactive data exploration, analysis and classification of large biological image sets. Bioinformatics 32, 3210–3212 (2016)
32. Adalsteinsson, V. A. et al. Scalable whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA reveals high concordance with metastatic tumors. Nat. Commun. 8, 1324 (2017)
33. Ha, G. et al. Integrative analysis of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity and monoallelic expression at nucleotide resolution reveals disrupted pathways in triple-negative breast cancer. Genome Res. 22, 1995–2007 (2012)
34. Sholl, L. M. et al. Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population. JCI Insight 1, e87062 (2016)
35. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009)
36. McKenna, A. et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010)
37. DePristo, M. A. et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011)
38. Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213–219 (2013)
39. McLaren, W. et al. Deriving the consequences of genomic variants with the Ensembl API and SNP effect predictor. Bioinformatics 26, 2069–2070 (2010)
40. Olshen, A. B., Venkatraman, E. S., Lucito, R. & Wigler, M. Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data. Biostatistics 5, 557–572 (2004)
41. Abo, R. P. et al. BreaKmer: detection of structural variation in targeted massively parallel sequencing data using kmers. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e19 (2015)
42. Sanjana, N. E., Shalem, O. & Zhang, F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nat. Methods 11, 783–784 (2014)
43. Joung, J. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR–Cas9 knockout and transcriptional activation screening. Nat. Protoc. 12, 828–863 (2017)
44. Johnson, W. E., Li, C. & Rabinovic, A. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8, 118–127 (2007)
45. Rees, M. G. et al. Correlating chemical sensitivity and basal gene expression reveals mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 109–116 (2016)
46. Golub, T. R. et al. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286, 531–537 (1999)
47. Macosko, E. Z. et al. Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161, 1202–1214 (2015)
48. Tirosh, I. et al. Dissecting the multicellular ecosystem of metastatic melanoma by single-cell RNA-seq. Science 352, 189–196 (2016)
49. Meyers, R. M. et al. Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR–Cas9 essentiality screens in cancer cells. Nat. Genet. 49, 1779–1784 (2017)
50. Hu, Y. Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Math. J. 10, 37–71 (2006)
51. Barbie, D. A. et al. Systematic RNA interference reveals that oncogenic KRAS-driven cancers require TBK1. Nature 462, 108–112 (2009)
52. Fowlkes, E. B. & Mallows, C. L. A method for comparing two hierarchical clusterings. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 78, 553–569 (1983)
53. Ben-David, U. et al. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat. Genet. 49, 1567–1575 (2017)
54. Carter, S. L. et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 413–421 (2012)
55. Zhang, S., Yuan, Y. & Hao, D. A genomic instability score in discriminating nonequivalent outcomes of BRCA1/2 mutations and in predicting outcomes of ovarian cancer treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. PLoS ONE 9, e113169 (2014)
56. 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)
57. Carter, S. L., Eklund, A. C., Kohane, I. S., Harris, L. N. & Szallasi, Z. A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat. Genet. 38, 1043–1048 (2006)
58. Pujar, S. et al. Consensus coding sequence (CCDS) database: a standardized set of human and mouse protein-coding regions supported by expert curation. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D221–D228 (2018)
59. Dobin, A. et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29, 15–21 (2013)
60. Li, B., Ruotti, V., Stewart, R. M., Thomson, J. A. & Dewey, C. N. RNA-seq gene expression estimation with read mapping uncertainty. Bioinformatics 26, 493–500 (2010)
61. Ben-David, U., Mayshar, Y. & Benvenisty, N. Virtual karyotyping of pluripotent stem cells on the basis of their global gene expression profiles. Nat. Protoc. 8, 989–997 (2013)
62. Krijthe, J. H. Rtsne: T-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding using a Barnes-Hut Implementation https://github.com/jkrijthe/Rtsne (2015)