Analysis of variability in high throughput screening data: applications to melanoma cell lines and drug responses

High-throughput screening (HTS) strategies and protocols have undergone significant development in the last decade. It is now possible to screen hundreds of thousands of compounds, each exploring multiple biological phenotypes and parameters, against various cell lines or model systems in a single setting. However, given the vast amount of data such studies generate, the fact that they use multiple reagents, and are often technician-intensive, questions have been raised about the variability, reliability and reproducibility of HTS results. Assessments of the impact of the multiple factors in HTS studies could arguably lead to more compelling insights into the robustness of the results of a particular screen, as well as the overall quality of the study. We leveraged classical, yet highly flexible, analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based linear models to explore how different factors contribute to the variation observed in a screening study of four different melanoma cell lines and 120 drugs over nine dosages studied in two independent academic laboratories. We find that factors such as plate effects, appropriate dosing ranges, and to a lesser extent, the laboratory performing the screen, are significant predictors of variation in drug responses across the cell lines. Further, we show that when sources of variation are quantified and controlled for, they contextualize claims of inconsistencies and reveal the overall quality of the HTS studies performed at each participating laboratory. In the context of the broader screening study, we show that our analysis can also elucidate the robust effects of drugs, even those within specific cell lines.

[1]  T. Ideker,et al.  The cancer cell map initiative: defining the hallmark networks of cancer. , 2015, Molecular cell.

[2]  Paul A Clemons,et al.  The Connectivity Map: Using Gene-Expression Signatures to Connect Small Molecules, Genes, and Disease , 2006, Science.

[3]  R. Shoemaker The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[4]  Adam A. Margolin,et al.  The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modeling of anticancer drug sensitivity , 2012, Nature.

[5]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion , 2008 .

[6]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[7]  Karsten M. Borgwardt,et al.  Prediction of human population responses to toxic compounds by a collaborative competition , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  Sridhar Ramaswamy,et al.  Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC): a resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Scott E. Martin,et al.  Reproducible pharmacogenomic profiling of cancer cell line panels , 2016, Nature.

[10]  Michael P. Morrissey,et al.  Pharmacogenomic agreement between two cancer cell line data sets , 2015, Nature.

[11]  Benjamin Haibe-Kains,et al.  Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies , 2013, Nature.

[12]  Michael Petrascheck,et al.  A pharmacological network for lifespan extension in Caenorhabditis elegans , 2013, Aging cell.

[13]  Sridhar Ramaswamy,et al.  Patient-derived models of acquired resistance can identify effective drug combinations for cancer , 2014, Science.

[14]  Aleksandar Sekulic,et al.  Pilot Trial of Selecting Molecularly Guided Therapy for Patients with Non–V600 BRAF-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma: Experience of the SU2C/MRA Melanoma Dream Team , 2015, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[15]  D. L. Taylor,et al.  A Personal Perspective on High-Content Screening (HCS) , 2010, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[16]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .