DrugComb: an integrative cancer drug combination data portal.

Drug combination therapy has the potential to enhance efficacy, reduce dose-dependent toxicity and prevent the emergence of drug resistance. However, discovery of synergistic and effective drug combinations has been a laborious and often serendipitous process. In recent years, identification of combination therapies has been accelerated due to the advances in high-throughput drug screening, but informatics approaches for systems-level data management and analysis are needed. To contribute toward this goal, we created an open-access data portal called DrugComb (https://drugcomb.fimm.fi) where the results of drug combination screening studies are accumulated, standardized and harmonized. Through the data portal, we provided a web server to analyze and visualize users' own drug combination screening data. The users can also effectively participate a crowdsourcing data curation effect by depositing their data at DrugComb. To initiate the data repository, we collected 437 932 drug combinations tested on a variety of cancer cell lines. We showed that linear regression approaches, when considering chemical fingerprints as predictors, have the potential to achieve high accuracy of predicting the sensitivity of drug combinations. All the data and informatics tools are freely available in DrugComb to enable a more efficient utilization of data resources for future drug combination discovery.

Harmonizing across datasets to improve the transferability of drug combination prediction.

Combination treatment has multiple advantages over traditional monotherapy in clinics, thus becoming a target of interest for many high-throughput screening (HTS) studies, which enables the development of machine learning models predicting the response of new drug combinations. However, most existing models have been tested only within a single study, and these models cannot generalize across different datasets due to significantly variable experimental settings. Here, we thoroughly assessed the transferability issue of single-study-derived models on new datasets. More importantly, we propose a method to overcome the experimental variability by harmonizing dose-response curves of different studies. Our method improves the prediction performance of machine learning models by 184% and 1367% compared to the baseline models in intra-study and inter-study predictions, respectively, and shows consistent improvement in multiple cross-validation settings. Our study addresses the crucial question of the transferability in drug combination predictions, which is fundamental for such models to be extrapolated to new drug combination discovery and clinical applications that are de facto different datasets.

Single-Cell Mononucleotide Microsatellite Analysis Reveals Differential Insertion-Deletion Dynamics in Mouse T Cells.

Microsatellite sequences are particularly prone to slippage during DNA replication, forming insertion-deletion loops that, if left unrepaired, result in de novo mutations (expansions or contractions of the repeat array). Mismatch repair (MMR) is a critical DNA repair mechanism that corrects these insertion-deletion loops, thereby maintaining microsatellite stability. MMR deficiency gives rise to the molecular phenotype known as microsatellite instability (MSI). By sequencing MMR-proficient and -deficient (Mlh1 +/+ and Mlh1 -/- ) single-cell exomes from mouse T cells, we reveal here several previously unrecognized features of in vivo MSI. Specifically, mutational dynamics of insertions and deletions were different on multiple levels. Factors that associated with propensity of mononucleotide microsatellites to insertions versus deletions were: microsatellite length, nucleotide composition of the mononucleotide tract, gene length and transcriptional status, as well replication timing. Here, we show on a single-cell level that deletions - the predominant MSI type in MMR-deficient cells - are preferentially associated with longer A/T tracts, long or transcribed genes and later-replicating genes.

Interpretable prognostic modeling of endometrial cancer.

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is one of the most common gynecological cancers in the world. In this work we apply Cox proportional hazards (CPH) and optimal survival tree (OST) algorithms to the retrospective prognostic modeling of disease-specific survival in 842 EC patients. We demonstrate that linear CPH models are preferred for the EC risk assessment based on clinical features alone, while interpretable, non-linear OST models are favored when patient profiles can be supplemented with additional biomarker data. We show how visually interpretable tree models can help generate and explore novel research hypotheses by studying the OST decision path structure, in which L1 cell adhesion molecule expression and estrogen receptor status are correctly indicated as important risk factors in the p53 abnormal EC subgroup. To aid further clinical adoption of advanced machine learning techniques, we stress the importance of quantifying model discrimination and calibration performance in the development of explainable clinical prediction models.

Prognosis Stratification Tools in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Could We Improve Their Accuracy?

There are three prognostic stratification tools used for endometrial cancer: ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO 2016, ProMisE, and ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2020. However, these methods are not sufficiently accurate to address prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the integration of molecular classification and other biomarkers could be used to improve the prognosis stratification in early-stage endometrial cancer. Relapse-free and overall survival of each classifier were analyzed, and the c-index was employed to assess accuracy. Other biomarkers were explored to improve the precision of risk classifiers. We analyzed 293 patients. A comparison between the three classifiers showed an improved accuracy in ESGO-ESTRO-ESP 2020 when RFS was evaluated (c-index = 0.78), although we did not find broad differences between intermediate prognostic groups. Prognosis of these patients was better stratified with the incorporation of CTNNB1 status to the 2020 classifier (c-index 0.81), with statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in 5-year RFS: 93.9% for low risk, 79.1% for intermediate merged group/CTNNB1 wild type, and 42.7% for high risk (including patients with CTNNB1 mutation). The incorporation of molecular classification in risk stratification resulted in better discriminatory capability, which could be improved even further with the addition of CTNNB1 mutational evaluation.