Exploring Integrative Analysis Using the BioMedical Evidence Graph.

PURPOSE: The analysis of cancer biology data involves extremely heterogeneous data sets, including information from RNA sequencing, genome-wide copy number, DNA methylation data reporting on epigenetic regulation, somatic mutations from whole-exome or whole-genome analyses, pathology estimates from imaging sections or subtyping, drug response or other treatment outcomes, and various other clinical and phenotypic measurements. Bringing these different resources into a common framework, with a data model that allows for complex relationships as well as dense vectors of features, will unlock integrated data set analysis. METHODS: We introduce the BioMedical Evidence Graph (BMEG), a graph database and query engine for discovery and analysis of cancer biology. The BMEG is unique from other biologic data graphs in that sample-level molecular and clinical information is connected to reference knowledge bases. It combines gene expression and mutation data with drug-response experiments, pathway information databases, and literature-derived associations. RESULTS: The construction of the BMEG has resulted in a graph containing > 41 million vertices and 57 million edges. The BMEG system provides a graph query-based application programming interface to enable analysis, with client code available for Python, Javascript, and R, and a server online at bmeg.io. Using this system, we have demonstrated several forms of cross-data set analysis to show the utility of the system. CONCLUSION: The BMEG is an evolving resource dedicated to enabling integrative analysis. We have demonstrated queries on the system that illustrate mutation significance analysis, drug-response machine learning, patient-level knowledge-base queries, and pathway level analysis. We have compared the resulting graph to other available integrated graph systems and demonstrated the former is unique in the scale of the graph and the type of data it makes available.

neoepiscope improves neoepitope prediction with multivariant phasing.

MOTIVATION: The vast majority of tools for neoepitope prediction from DNA sequencing of complementary tumor and normal patient samples do not consider germline context or the potential for the co-occurrence of two or more somatic variants on the same mRNA transcript. Without consideration of these phenomena, existing approaches are likely to produce both false-positive and false-negative results, resulting in an inaccurate and incomplete picture of the cancer neoepitope landscape. We developed neoepiscope chiefly to address this issue for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertions/deletions (indels). RESULTS: Herein, we illustrate how germline and somatic variant phasing affects neoepitope prediction across multiple datasets. We estimate that up to ∼5% of neoepitopes arising from SNVs and indels may require variant phasing for their accurate assessment. neoepiscope is performant, flexible and supports several major histocompatibility complex binding affinity prediction tools. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: neoepiscope is available on GitHub at https://github.com/pdxgx/neoepiscope under the MIT license. Scripts for reproducing results described in the text are available at https://github.com/pdxgx/neoepiscope-paper under the MIT license. Additional data from this study, including summaries of variant phasing incidence and benchmarking wallclock times, are available in Supplementary Files 1, 2 and 3. Supplementary File 1 contains Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figures 1 and 2, and descriptions of Supplementary Tables 2-8. Supplementary File 2 contains Supplementary Tables 2-6 and 8. Supplementary File 3 contains Supplementary Table 7. Raw sequencing data used for the analyses in this manuscript are available from the Sequence Read Archive under accessions PRJNA278450, PRJNA312948, PRJNA307199, PRJNA343789, PRJNA357321, PRJNA293912, PRJNA369259, PRJNA305077, PRJNA306070, PRJNA82745 and PRJNA324705; from the European Genome-phenome Archive under accessions EGAD00001004352 and EGAD00001002731; and by direct request to the authors. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Population-level distribution and putative immunogenicity of cancer neoepitopes.

BACKGROUND: Tumor neoantigens are drivers of cancer immunotherapy response; however, current prediction tools produce many candidates requiring further prioritization. Additional filtration criteria and population-level understanding may assist with prioritization. Herein, we show neoepitope immunogenicity is related to measures of peptide novelty and report population-level behavior of these and other metrics. METHODS: We propose four peptide novelty metrics to refine predicted neoantigenicity: tumor vs. paired normal peptide binding affinity difference, tumor vs. paired normal peptide sequence similarity, tumor vs. closest human peptide sequence similarity, and tumor vs. closest microbial peptide sequence similarity. We apply these metrics to neoepitopes predicted from somatic missense mutations in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and a cohort of melanoma patients, and to a group of peptides with neoepitope-specific immune response data using an extension of pVAC-Seq (Hundal et al., pVAC-Seq: a genome-guided in silico approach to identifying tumor neoantigens. Genome Med 8:11, 2016). RESULTS: We show neoepitope burden varies across TCGA diseases and HLA alleles, with surprisingly low repetition of neoepitope sequences across patients or neoepitope preferences among sets of HLA alleles. Only 20.3% of predicted neoepitopes across TCGA patients displayed novel binding change based on our binding affinity difference criteria. Similarity of amino acid sequence was typically high between paired tumor-normal epitopes, but in 24.6% of cases, neoepitopes were more similar to other human peptides, or bacterial (56.8% of cases) or viral peptides (15.5% of cases), than their paired normal counterparts. Applied to peptides with neoepitope-specific immune response, a linear model incorporating neoepitope binding affinity, protein sequence similarity between neoepitopes and their closest viral peptides, and paired binding affinity difference was able to predict immunogenicity (AUROC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed prioritization criteria emphasize neoepitope novelty and refine patient neoepitope predictions for focus on biologically meaningful candidate neoantigens. We have demonstrated that neoepitopes should be considered not only with respect to their paired normal epitope, but to the entire human proteome, and bacterial and viral peptides, with potential implications for neoepitope immunogenicity and personalized vaccines for cancer treatment. We conclude that putative neoantigens are highly variable across individuals as a function of cancer genetics and personalized HLA repertoire, while the overall behavior of filtration criteria reflects predictable patterns.