scholarly journals A method of gene expression data transfer from cell lines to cancer patients for machine-learning prediction of drug efficiency

Cell Cycle ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Borisov ◽  
Victor Tkachev ◽  
Maria Suntsova ◽  
Olga Kovalchuk ◽  
Alex Zhavoronkov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Drug Efficiency

scholarly journals Systematic assessment of multi-gene predictors of pan-cancer cell line sensitivity to drugs exploiting gene expression data

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linh Nguyen ◽  
Cuong C Dang ◽  
Pedro J. Ballester
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Cell Line ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Single Gene ◽  
Cancer Cell Line ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Gene Markers ◽  
Pan Cancer

Background:Selected gene mutations are routinely used to guide the selection of cancer drugs for a given patient tumour. Large pharmacogenomic data sets were introduced to discover more of these single-gene markers of drug sensitivity. Very recently, machine learning regression has been used to investigate how well cancer cell line sensitivity to drugs is predicted depending on the type of molecular profile. The latter has revealed that gene expression data is the most predictive profile in the pan-cancer setting. However, no study to date has exploited GDSC data to systematically compare the performance of machine learning models based on multi-gene expression data against that of widely-used single-gene markers based on genomics data.Methods:Here we present this systematic comparison using Random Forest (RF) classifiers exploiting the expression levels of 13,321 genes and an average of 501 tested cell lines per drug. To account for time-dependent batch effects in IC50measurements, we employ independent test sets generated with more recent GDSC data than that used to train the predictors and show that this is a more realistic validation than K-fold cross-validation.Results and Discussion:Across 127 GDSC drugs, our results show that the single-gene markers unveiled by the MANOVA analysis tend to achieve higher precision than these RF-based multi-gene models, at the cost of generally having a poor recall (i.e. correctly detecting only a small part of the cell lines sensitive to the drug). Regarding overall classification performance, about two thirds of the drugs are better predicted by multi-gene RF classifiers. Among the drugs with the most predictive of these models, we found pyrimethamine, sunitinib and 17-AAG.Conclusions:We now know that this type of models can predictin vitrotumour response to these drugs. These models can thus be further investigated onin vivotumour models.

scholarly journals Systematic assessment of multi-gene predictors of pan-cancer cell line sensitivity to drugs exploiting gene expression data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linh C. Nguyen ◽  
Cuong C. Dang ◽  
Pedro J. Ballester
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Cell Line ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Single Gene ◽  
Cancer Cell Line ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Gene Markers ◽  
Pan Cancer

AbstractSelected gene mutations are routinely used to guide the selection of cancer drugs for a given patient tumour. Large pharmacogenomic data sets were introduced to discover more of these single-gene markers of drug sensitivity. Very recently, machine learning regression has been used to investigate how well cancer cell line sensitivity to drugs is predicted depending on the type of molecular profile. The latter has revealed that gene expression data is the most predictive profile in the pan-cancer setting. However, no study to date has exploited GDSC data to systematically compare the performance of machine learning models based on multi-gene expression data against that of widely-used single-gene markers based on genomics data.Here we present this systematic comparison using Random Forest (RF) classifiers exploiting the expression levels of 13,321 genes and an average of 501 tested cell lines per drug. To account for time-dependent batch effects in IC50measurements, we employ independent test sets generated with more recent GDSC data than that used to train the predictors and show that this is a more realistic validation than K-fold cross-validation. Across 127 GDSC drugs, our results show that the single-gene markers unveiled by the MANOVA analysis tend to achieve higher precision than these RF-based multi-gene models, at the cost of generally having a poor recall (i.e. correctly detecting only a small part of the cell lines sensitive to the drug). Regarding overall classification performance, about two thirds of the drugs are better predicted by multi-gene RF classifiers. Among the drugs with the most predictive of these models, we found pyrimethamine, sunitinib and 17-AAG.

scholarly journals Leveraging TCGA gene expression data to build predictive models for cancer drug response

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan A. Clayton ◽  
Toyya A. Pujol ◽  
John F. McDonald ◽  
Peng Qiu
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Predictive Models ◽  
Drug Response ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Classification Methods ◽  
Clustering And Classification ◽  
Machine Learning Models

Abstract Background Machine learning has been utilized to predict cancer drug response from multi-omics data generated from sensitivities of cancer cell lines to different therapeutic compounds. Here, we build machine learning models using gene expression data from patients’ primary tumor tissues to predict whether a patient will respond positively or negatively to two chemotherapeutics: 5-Fluorouracil and Gemcitabine. Results We focused on 5-Fluorouracil and Gemcitabine because based on our exclusion criteria, they provide the largest numbers of patients within TCGA. Normalized gene expression data were clustered and used as the input features for the study. We used matching clinical trial data to ascertain the response of these patients via multiple classification methods. Multiple clustering and classification methods were compared for prediction accuracy of drug response. Clara and random forest were found to be the best clustering and classification methods, respectively. The results show our models predict with up to 86% accuracy; despite the study’s limitation of sample size. We also found the genes most informative for predicting drug response were enriched in well-known cancer signaling pathways and highlighted their potential significance in chemotherapy prognosis. Conclusions Primary tumor gene expression is a good predictor of cancer drug response. Investment in larger datasets containing both patient gene expression and drug response is needed to support future work of machine learning models. Ultimately, such predictive models may aid oncologists with making critical treatment decisions.

scholarly journals Machine learning analysis of gene expression data reveals novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers and identifies therapeutic targets for soft tissue sarcomas

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. e1006826 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. P. van IJzendoorn ◽  
Karoly Szuhai ◽  
Inge H. Briaire-de Bruijn ◽  
Marie Kostine ◽  
Marieke L. Kuijjer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Therapeutic Targets ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcomas ◽  
Prognostic Biomarkers ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Learning Analysis

scholarly journals 3145 An Evaluation of Machine Learning and Traditional Statistical Methods for Discovery in Large-Scale Translational Data

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Megan C Hollister ◽  
Jeffrey D. Blume
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Random Forest ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
P Values ◽  
Machine Learning Methods

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To examine and compare the claims in Bzdok, Altman, and Brzywinski under a broader set of conditions by using unbiased methods of comparison. To explore how to accurately use various machine learning and traditional statistical methods in large-scale translational research by estimating their accuracy statistics. Then we will identify the methods with the best performance characteristics. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a simulation study with a microarray of gene expression data. We maintained the original structure proposed by Bzdok, Altman, and Brzywinski. The structure for gene expression data includes a total of 40 genes from 20 people, in which 10 people are phenotype positive and 10 are phenotype negative. In order to find a statistical difference 25% of the genes were set to be dysregulated across phenotype. This dysregulation forced the positive and negative phenotypes to have different mean population expressions. Additional variance was included to simulate genetic variation across the population. We also allowed for within person correlation across genes, which was not done in the original simulations. The following methods were used to determine the number of dysregulated genes in simulated data set: unadjusted p-values, Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p-values, Bonferroni adjusted p-values, random forest importance levels, neural net prediction weights, and second-generation p-values. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results vary depending on whether a pre-specified significance level is used or the top 10 ranked values are taken. When all methods are given the same prior information of 10 dysregulated genes, the Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p-values and the second-generation p-values generally outperform all other methods. We were not able to reproduce or validate the finding that random forest importance levels via a machine learning algorithm outperform classical methods. Almost uniformly, the machine learning methods did not yield improved accuracy statistics and they depend heavily on the a priori chosen number of dysregulated genes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: In this context, machine learning methods do not outperform standard methods. Because of this and their additional complexity, machine learning approaches would not be preferable. Of all the approaches the second-generation p-value appears to offer significant benefit for the cost of a priori defining a region of trivially null effect sizes. The choice of an analysis method for large-scale translational data is critical to the success of any statistical investigation, and our simulations clearly highlight the various tradeoffs among the available methods.

scholarly journals GEDS: A Gene Expression Display Server for mRNAs, miRNAs and Proteins

Cells ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xia ◽  
Liu ◽  
Zhang ◽  
Guo
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Gene Expression Data ◽  
Expression Profiles ◽  
Gene Expression Profiles ◽  
Cancer Cell Line ◽  
Tissue Expression ◽  
The Cancer Genome Atlas ◽  
Expression Data ◽  
Protein Levels

High-throughput technologies generate a tremendous amount of expression data on mRNA, miRNA and protein levels. Mining and visualizing the large amount of expression data requires sophisticated computational skills. An easy to use and user-friendly web-server for the visualization of gene expression profiles could greatly facilitate data exploration and hypothesis generation for biologists. Here, we curated and normalized the gene expression data on mRNA, miRNA and protein levels in 23315, 9009 and 9244 samples, respectively, from 40 tissues (The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Genotype-Tissue Expression (GETx)) and 1594 cell lines (Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) and MD Anderson Cell Lines Project (MCLP)). Then, we constructed the Gene Expression Display Server (GEDS), a web-based tool for quantification, comparison and visualization of gene expression data. GEDS integrates multiscale expression data and provides multiple types of figures and tables to satisfy several kinds of user requirements. The comprehensive expression profiles plotted in the one-stop GEDS platform greatly facilitate experimental biologists utilizing big data for better experimental design and analysis. GEDS is freely available on http://bioinfo.life.hust.edu.cn/web/GEDS/.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document