henhaobio
Sign in

BMC BioinformaticsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article

Quantitative Structure-Mutation-Activity Relationship Tests (QSMART) Model for Protein Kinase Inhibitor Response Prediction

Liang‐Chin HuangiD, Wayland YeungiD, Ye WangiD, Huimin ChengiD, Aarya VenkatiD, Sheng LiiD, Ping MaiD, Khaled RasheediD, Natarajan KannaniD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Predicting drug sensitivity profiles from genotypes is a major challenge in personalized medicine. Machine learning and deep neural network methods have shown promise in addressing this challenge, but the "black-box" nature of these methods precludes a mechanistic understanding of how and which genomic and proteomic features contribute to the observed drug sensitivity profiles. Here we provide a combination of statistical and neural network framework that not only estimates drug IC50 in cancer cell lines with high accuracy (R2 = 0.861 and RMSE = 0.818) but also identifies features contributing to the accuracy, thereby enhancing explainability. Our framework, termed QSMART, uses a multi-component approach that includes (1) collecting drug fingerprints, cancer cell lines multi-omics features, and drug responses, (2) testing the statistical significance of interaction terms, (3) selecting features by Lasso with Bayesian information criterion, and (4) using neural networks to predict drug response. We evaluate the contribution of each of these components and use a case study to explain the biological relevance of several selected features to protein kinase inhibitor response in non-small cell lung cancer cells. Specifically, we illustrate how interaction terms that capture associations between drugs and mutant kinases quantitatively contribute to the response of two EGFR inhibitors (afatinib and lapatinib) in non-small cell lung cancer cells. Although we have tested QSMART on protein kinase inhibitors, it can be extended across the proteome to investigate the complex relationships connecting genotypes and drug sensitivity profiles.

Citations
13
FWCI
0.99
Field percentile
top 21%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.