Literature DB >> 23619782

Crowdsourcing genetic prediction of clinical utility in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge.

Robert M Plenge, Jeffrey D Greenberg, Lara M Mangravite, Jonathan M J Derry, Eli A Stahl, Marieke J H Coenen, Anne Barton, Leonid Padyukov, Lars Klareskog, Peter K Gregersen, Xavier Mariette, Larry W Moreland, S Louis Bridges, Niek de Vries, Tom W J Huizinga, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Stephen H Friend, Gustavo Stolovitzky.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23619782      PMCID: PMC4084858          DOI: 10.1038/ng.2623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Genet        ISSN: 1061-4036            Impact factor:   38.330


× No keyword cloud information.

To the Editor

The ability to translate large-scale genetics and genomics data into biological knowledge has not kept pace with our ability to generate these data sets. As a consequence, a major bottleneck in biomedical research has become access to data within a computational workspace that allows for robust, collaborative analyses. One innovative solution is to bring together scientific data, code, tools and disease models into an open commons or workspace, for example, the Synapse platform of Sage Bionetworks[1]. This environment allows for real-time sharing of large genomic data sets, continuous peer review and rapid learning within a system constructed to provide data access in a manner aligned with the informed consent provided by patients and research participants. This crowdsourcing approach has been used to predict breast cancer survival from clinical and omics data[2] and was suggested as a way to find new drugs[3] by soliciting contributions from a large online community collaborating or competing to answer an inherently difficult but important question[4]. Researchers initiating an open challenge invite solutions but also incentivize the process by offering new data, a process in which the participants’ methods can be assessed by testing their predictions against previously unseen data sets. This year, Sage and DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) are running four open challenges (http://www.sagebase.org/challenges-overview/2013-dream-challenges/). Here we announce the challenge to develop genetic predictors of response to immunosuppressive therapy in a common autoimmune disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as those that block the inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-α (known as anti-TNF therapy) are not effective in all patients with RA, with up to one-third of such patients failing to enter clinical remission after a standard course of therapy[5]. Moreover, the biological mechanisms underlying this failure are unknown, limiting the development of clinical biomarkers to guide either this therapy or the development of new drugs to target refractory cases. The Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge is for teams to build the best genetic predictor of response to anti-TNF therapy. There are two phases to the challenge: discovery and validation (Fig. 1). In the discovery phase, teams will utilize genomic data sets—several of which will be generated for the purposes of this challenge—and a variety of analytical methods to build predictive polygenic models of treatment response. We recently published a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in ~2,700 patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy[6]. Our GWAS data indicate that the genetic architecture of the anti-TNF response is probably highly polygenic, similar to what has been observed for other complex traits, such as risk of RA[7]. Importantly, our challenge will incorporate a new GWAS data set, which will be used in the validation phase, in which models built in the discovery phase are tested. The data set of ~1,100 patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy will be made available though a public-private partnership between the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Inc. (CORRONA) and the Pharmacogenomics Research Network (PGRN) sponsored by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Figure 1

Overview of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge. There are two phases to the challenge. In phase 1 (discovery), analysts build genetic models of response to anti-TNF therapy using SNP data from a GWAS of ~2,700 patients with RA. To facilitate model building, additional genomic data will be made available. In a model of open collaboration, participants will use Synapse to post code, share insights and engage in rapid learning prepublication. In phase 2 (validation), models will be posted, tested and scored in an independent GWAS data set of ~1,100 patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy. To complement challenge-assisted peer review (which occurs in both the discovery and validation phases), conventional peer review will have access to Synapse to understand the iterative process of model building. Synapse will allow study investigators to respond to peer-review critiques and resubmit versions of their models and studies.

A unique component of our Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge is the diversity of participation across a number of groups from academic institutions, private foundations and for-profit companies. In addition to support from CORRONA and PGRN, we received funding from pharmaceutical companies (see complete list on our website; link below) and a private foundation (the Arthritis Foundation) to support the public commons. We also received support from the Arthritis Internet Registry (AIR) and the Broad Institute to generate new genomic data sets, as well as in-kind support from a large number of academic collaborators from across the world to make GWAS data available in the discovery phase. We anticipate that a winning classifier could enable a follow-on prospective clinical trial within the group of appropriately consented patients in AIR. Through Synapse, analysts who are inclined to establish collaborations will have the opportunity to see in real time the models that others are using so that each team can learn from the others (Fig. 1). A leaderboard will show the relative performance ranking of the different teams on the basis of a crossvalidation strategy designed to minimize overfitting. During the discovery phase, teams that choose to collaborate with each other will have the opportunity to check each other’s algorithms for readability, speed and reproducibility. Then, during the validation phase, each team will submit computer code, which the Sage-DREAM team (http://www.sagebase.org/) will test in Synapse to establish whether it runs as expected to predict if a subject is an anti-TNF therapy responder or nonresponder on the basis of the GWAS data. Predefined performance metrics will be used to objectively determine the accuracy of the predictions, their statistical significance and the final performance ranking of the participating teams. The team that develops the most highly predictive model will be deemed the ‘winner’, with precise attribution of contributor roles going to all members of teams that contributed to building the final consensus model. The best-performing models, therefore, will have passed a test of performance that is outside the realm of, and complements, traditional peer review. Indeed, this stringent test of method performance can be used as an enhanced way of publication vetting, what we call ‘challenge-assisted peer review’. Traditional peer review is essential for ensuring the clarity, originality, contextualization and logical thread of a discrete set of work that is ready to be used by researchers in the form of a published article. However, the complexity of working with omics data—entailing multiple analytical decisions, computational simulations and statistical calculations—means that referees are challenged to follow and check the components of even a traditional research paper. In our Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge, we will explore the feasibility of enhancing the reliability and transparency of conventional peer review in partnership with Nature Genetics. This can be achieved if the referees and authors of the paper reporting on the best-performing methods in the challenge are willing to leave their comments openly (yet anonymously) on the Synapse platform (Fig. 1). We anticipate that the challenge-based assessment of accuracy will provide an objective metric of performance and a comparison with state-of-the-art analytical methodologies that will greatly enhance the task of refereeing a body of work with more quality control than is currently provided by conventional peer review. In conclusion, we believe that the Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge is an apt use of crowdsourcing in human genetics to gain insight into clinical prediction and disease biology. Details of the challenge, including the rules by which the models will be judged, can be found at https://synapse.prod.sagebase.org/#!Synapse:syn1734172.
  7 in total

Review 1.  The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Iain B McInnes; Georg Schett
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Developing predictive molecular maps of human disease through community-based modeling.

Authors:  Jonathan M J Derry; Lara M Mangravite; Christine Suver; Matthew D Furia; David Henderson; Xavier Schildwachter; Brian Bot; Jonathan Izant; Solveig K Sieberts; Michael R Kellen; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 38.330

3.  New cures sought from old drugs.

Authors:  Meredith Wadman
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Seeking the wisdom of crowds through challenge-based competitions in biomedical research.

Authors:  J C Costello; G Stolovitzky
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Systematic analysis of challenge-driven improvements in molecular prognostic models for breast cancer.

Authors:  Adam A Margolin; Erhan Bilal; Erich Huang; Thea C Norman; Lars Ottestad; Brigham H Mecham; Ben Sauerwine; Michael R Kellen; Lara M Mangravite; Matthew D Furia; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Oscar M Rueda; Justin Guinney; Nicole A Deflaux; Bruce Hoff; Xavier Schildwachter; Hege G Russnes; Daehoon Park; Veronica O Vang; Tyler Pirtle; Lamia Youseff; Craig Citro; Christina Curtis; Vessela N Kristensen; Joseph Hellerstein; Stephen H Friend; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Samuel Aparicio; Carlos Caldas; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Bayesian inference analyses of the polygenic architecture of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Eli A Stahl; Daniel Wegmann; Gosia Trynka; Javier Gutierrez-Achury; Ron Do; Benjamin F Voight; Peter Kraft; Robert Chen; Henrik J Kallberg; Fina A S Kurreeman; Sekar Kathiresan; Cisca Wijmenga; Peter K Gregersen; Lars Alfredsson; Katherine A Siminovitch; Jane Worthington; Paul I W de Bakker; Soumya Raychaudhuri; Robert M Plenge
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2012-03-25       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Genome-wide association study and gene expression analysis identifies CD84 as a predictor of response to etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Jing Cui; Eli A Stahl; Saedis Saevarsdottir; Corinne Miceli; Dorothee Diogo; Gosia Trynka; Towfique Raj; Maša Umiċeviċ Mirkov; Helena Canhao; Katsunori Ikari; Chikashi Terao; Yukinori Okada; Sara Wedrén; Johan Askling; Hisashi Yamanaka; Shigeki Momohara; Atsuo Taniguchi; Koichiro Ohmura; Fumihiko Matsuda; Tsuneyo Mimori; Namrata Gupta; Manik Kuchroo; Ann W Morgan; John D Isaacs; Anthony G Wilson; Kimme L Hyrich; Marieke Herenius; Marieke E Doorenspleet; Paul-Peter Tak; J Bart A Crusius; Irene E van der Horst-Bruinsma; Gert Jan Wolbink; Piet L C M van Riel; Mart van de Laar; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Nancy A Shadick; Cornelia F Allaart; Tom W J Huizinga; Rene E M Toes; Robert P Kimberly; S Louis Bridges; Lindsey A Criswell; Larry W Moreland; João Eurico Fonseca; Niek de Vries; Barbara E Stranger; Philip L De Jager; Soumya Raychaudhuri; Michael E Weinblatt; Peter K Gregersen; Xavier Mariette; Anne Barton; Leonid Padyukov; Marieke J H Coenen; Elizabeth W Karlson; Robert M Plenge
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 5.917

  7 in total
  12 in total

1.  DREAMing of benchmarks.

Authors:  Irene Jarchum; Susan Jones
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  Lost but making progress--Where will new analgesic drugs come from?

Authors:  David Borsook; Richard Hargreaves; Chas Bountra; Frank Porreca
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 3.  Crowdsourcing biomedical research: leveraging communities as innovation engines.

Authors:  Julio Saez-Rodriguez; James C Costello; Stephen H Friend; Michael R Kellen; Lara Mangravite; Pablo Meyer; Thea Norman; Gustavo Stolovitzky
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Citizens unite for computational immunology!

Authors:  Orrin S Belden; Sarah Catherine Baker; Brian M Baker
Journal:  Trends Immunol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 16.687

5.  Taking pan-cancer analysis global.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 6.  An introduction to machine learning and analysis of its use in rheumatic diseases.

Authors:  Kathryn M Kingsmore; Christopher E Puglisi; Amrie C Grammer; Peter E Lipsky
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 20.543

7.  Systems Medicine 2.0: potential benefits of combining electronic health care records with systems science models.

Authors:  Taavi Tillmann; Alexander R Gibson; Gregory Scott; Oliver Harrison; Anna Dominiczak; Phil Hanlon
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 8.  Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview.

Authors:  Kerri Wazny
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.413

Review 9.  Data- and knowledge-based modeling of gene regulatory networks: an update.

Authors:  Jörg Linde; Sylvie Schulze; Sebastian G Henkel; Reinhard Guthke
Journal:  EXCLI J       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 4.068

10.  Crowdsourced assessment of common genetic contribution to predicting anti-TNF treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Solveig K Sieberts; Fan Zhu; Javier García-García; Eli Stahl; Abhishek Pratap; Gaurav Pandey; Dimitrios Pappas; Daniel Aguilar; Bernat Anton; Jaume Bonet; Ridvan Eksi; Oriol Fornés; Emre Guney; Hongdong Li; Manuel Alejandro Marín; Bharat Panwar; Joan Planas-Iglesias; Daniel Poglayen; Jing Cui; Andre O Falcao; Christine Suver; Bruce Hoff; Venkat S K Balagurusamy; Donna Dillenberger; Elias Chaibub Neto; Thea Norman; Tero Aittokallio; Muhammad Ammad-Ud-Din; Chloe-Agathe Azencott; Víctor Bellón; Valentina Boeva; Kerstin Bunte; Himanshu Chheda; Lu Cheng; Jukka Corander; Michel Dumontier; Anna Goldenberg; Peddinti Gopalacharyulu; Mohsen Hajiloo; Daniel Hidru; Alok Jaiswal; Samuel Kaski; Beyrem Khalfaoui; Suleiman Ali Khan; Eric R Kramer; Pekka Marttinen; Aziz M Mezlini; Bhuvan Molparia; Matti Pirinen; Janna Saarela; Matthias Samwald; Véronique Stoven; Hao Tang; Jing Tang; Ali Torkamani; Jean-Phillipe Vert; Bo Wang; Tao Wang; Krister Wennerberg; Nathan E Wineinger; Guanghua Xiao; Yang Xie; Rae Yeung; Xiaowei Zhan; Cheng Zhao; Jeff Greenberg; Joel Kremer; Kaleb Michaud; Anne Barton; Marieke Coenen; Xavier Mariette; Corinne Miceli; Nancy Shadick; Michael Weinblatt; Niek de Vries; Paul P Tak; Danielle Gerlag; Tom W J Huizinga; Fina Kurreeman; Cornelia F Allaart; S Louis Bridges; Lindsey Criswell; Larry Moreland; Lars Klareskog; Saedis Saevarsdottir; Leonid Padyukov; Peter K Gregersen; Stephen Friend; Robert Plenge; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Baldo Oliva; Yuanfang Guan; Lara M Mangravite
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.