Optimization of cell viability assays to improve replicability and reproducibility of cancer drug sensitivity screens

Cancer drug development has been riddled with high attrition rates, in part, due to poor reproducibility of preclinical models for drug discovery. Poor experimental design and lack of scientific transparency may cause experimental biases that in turn affect data quality, robustness and reproducibility. Here, we pinpoint sources of experimental variability in conventional 2D cell-based cancer drug screens to determine the effect of confounders on cell viability for MCF7 and HCC38 breast cancer cell lines treated with platinum agents (cisplatin and carboplatin) and a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib). Variance component analysis demonstrated that variations in cell viability were primarily associated with the choice of pharmaceutical drug and cell line, and less likely to be due to the type of growth medium or assay incubation time. Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to different methods of storing diluted pharmaceutical drugs and use of DMSO controls due to the potential risk of evaporation and the subsequent effect on dose-response curves. Optimization of experimental parameters not only improved data quality substantially but also resulted in reproducible results for bortezomib- and cisplatin-treated HCC38, MCF7, MCF-10A, and MDA-MB-436 cells. Taken together, these findings indicate that replicability (the same analyst re-performs the same experiment multiple times) and reproducibility (different analysts perform the same experiment using different experimental conditions) for cell-based drug screens can be improved by identifying potential confounders and subsequent optimization of experimental parameters for each cell line.

[1]  I. Wilson,et al.  Investigation of the Alamar Blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity. , 2000, European journal of biochemistry.

[2]  Maria F. Gencoglu,et al.  Applicability of Drug Response Metrics for Cancer Studies using Biomaterials , 2018, bioRxiv.

[3]  N. Silanikove,et al.  CHAPTER 23:Combined Assays for Lactose and Galactose by Enzymatic Reactions , 2012 .

[4]  J N Weinstein,et al.  Characterization of the p53 tumor suppressor pathway in cell lines of the National Cancer Institute anticancer drug screen and correlations with the growth-inhibitory potency of 123 anticancer agents. , 1997, Cancer research.

[5]  Darren Finlay,et al.  Analysis of variability in high throughput screening data: applications to melanoma cell lines and drug responses , 2017, Oncotarget.

[6]  P. Sorger,et al.  Growth rate inhibition metrics correct for confounders in measuring sensitivity to cancer drugs , 2016, Nature Methods.

[7]  Marc Hafner,et al.  Alternative drug sensitivity metrics improve preclinical cancer pharmacogenomics , 2017, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  F. Prinz,et al.  Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  Delyan P. Ivanov,et al.  Multiplexing Spheroid Volume, Resazurin and Acid Phosphatase Viability Assays for High-Throughput Screening of Tumour Spheroids and Stem Cell Neurospheres , 2014, PloS one.

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

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

[12]  Elizabeth H. Williams,et al.  GRcalculator: an online tool for calculating and mining dose–response data , 2017, BMC Cancer.

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

[14]  Thomas D. Y. Chung,et al.  A Simple Statistical Parameter for Use in Evaluation and Validation of High Throughput Screening Assays , 1999, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[15]  Zhaleh Safikhani,et al.  PharmacoDB: an integrative database for mining in vitro anticancer drug screening studies , 2017, bioRxiv.

[16]  Brian J Eastwood,et al.  A Comparison of Assay Performance Measures in Screening Assays: Signal Window, Z' Factor, and Assay Variability Ratio , 2006, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[17]  L. Hutchinson,et al.  High drug attrition rates—where are we going wrong? , 2011, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[18]  M. Sassi,et al.  A first approach to evaluate the cell dose in highly porous scaffolds by using a nondestructive metabolic method , 2015, Future science OA.

[19]  Tom Lenahan Planning the turnaround , 1999 .

[20]  Chi-Long Chen,et al.  Long-term growth comparison studies of FBS and FBS alternatives in six head and neck cell lines , 2017, PloS one.

[21]  G. Morgan,et al.  Bortezomib (Velcade™) in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma , 2006, Therapeutics and clinical risk management.

[22]  Mindaugas Tamošiūnas,et al.  Different Cell Viability Assays Reveal Inconsistent Results After Bleomycin Electrotransfer In Vitro , 2015, The Journal of Membrane Biology.

[23]  Liang Yuan,et al.  Automatic Liquid Handling for Life Science , 2012, Journal of laboratory automation.

[24]  W. J. Vijgh Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Carboplatin , 1991 .

[25]  Prasad Patil,et al.  A visual tool for defining reproducibility and replicability , 2019, Nature Human Behaviour.

[26]  Justin Guinney,et al.  Systematic Assessment of Analytical Methods for Drug Sensitivity Prediction from Cancer Cell Line Data , 2013, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[27]  Marc Hafner,et al.  A Multi-center Study on the Reproducibility of Drug-Response Assays in Mammalian Cell Lines , 2019, Cell systems.

[28]  Krister Wennerberg,et al.  Quantitative scoring of differential drug sensitivity for individually optimized anticancer therapies , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[29]  T. Aittokallio,et al.  A normalized drug response metric improves accuracy and consistency of anticancer drug sensitivity quantification in cell-based screening , 2020, Communications Biology.

[30]  Ming-Wei Wang,et al.  Quality control of cell-based high-throughput drug screening , 2012 .

[31]  Robert Clarke,et al.  Enhancing reproducibility in cancer drug screening: how do we move forward? , 2014, Cancer research.

[32]  P. Tchounwou,et al.  Cisplatin in cancer therapy: molecular mechanisms of action. , 2014, European journal of pharmacology.

[33]  P. Sanseau,et al.  Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations , 2018, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[34]  W. Janzen,et al.  High-throughput screening: advances in assay technologies. , 1997, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[35]  Marc L. Mendillo,et al.  A genome-wide siRNA screen identifies proteasome addiction as a vulnerability of basal-like triple-negative breast cancer cells. , 2013, Cancer cell.

[36]  Giulio Draetta,et al.  Oncology drug discovery: planning a turnaround. , 2014, Cancer discovery.

[37]  Sam Michael,et al.  mQC: A Heuristic Quality-Control Metric for High-Throughput Drug Combination Screening , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[38]  Marc Hafner,et al.  Quantification of sensitivity and resistance of breast cancer cell lines to anti-cancer drugs using GR metrics , 2017, Scientific Data.

[39]  O. Kallioniemi,et al.  High-Throughput 3D Screening Reveals Differences in Drug Sensitivities between Culture Models of JIMT1 Breast Cancer Cells , 2013, PloS one.

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

[41]  Marc Bickle,et al.  Screening out irrelevant cell-based models of disease , 2016, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[42]  D. Levêque,et al.  Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Bortezomib , 2007 .

[43]  P. Ertl,et al.  Optimized alamarBlue assay protocol for drug dose-response determination of 3D tumor spheroids , 2018, MethodsX.

[44]  R. Mrowka,et al.  Human serum alters cell culture behavior and improves spheroid formation in comparison to fetal bovine serum , 2018, Experimental cell research.

[45]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[46]  Marius Raica,et al.  The Story of MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: 40 years of Experience in Research. , 2015, Anticancer research.

[47]  D. Levêque,et al.  Review. Clinical pharmacokinetics of bortezomib. , 2007, In vivo.