Paul Geeleher1, Andrey Loboda1, Divya Lenkala1, Fan Wang1, Bonnie LaCroix1, Sanja Karovic1, Jacqueline Wang1, Michael Nebozhyn1, Michael Chisamore1, James Hardwick1, Michael L Maitland1, R Stephanie Huang2. 1. Department of Medicine (PG, DL, FW, BL, SK, JW, MLM, RSH), Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics (MLM, RSH), and the Comprehensive Cancer Center (MLM, RSH), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Oncology Clinical Research, Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA (AL, MN, MC, JH). 2. Department of Medicine (PG, DL, FW, BL, SK, JW, MLM, RSH), Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics (MLM, RSH), and the Comprehensive Cancer Center (MLM, RSH), University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Oncology Clinical Research, Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA (AL, MN, MC, JH). rhuang@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many disparate biomarkers have been proposed as predictors of response to histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDI); however, all have failed when applied clinically. Rather than this being entirely an issue of reproducibility, response to the HDI vorinostat may be determined by the additive effect of multiple molecular factors, many of which have previously been demonstrated. METHODS: We conducted a large-scale gene expression analysis using the Cancer Genome Project for discovery and generated another large independent cancer cell line dataset across different cancers for validation. We compared different approaches in terms of how accurately vorinostat response can be predicted on an independent out-of-batch set of samples and applied the polygenic marker prediction principles in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Using machine learning, the small effects that aggregate, resulting in sensitivity or resistance, can be recovered from gene expression data in a large panel of cancer cell lines.This approach can predict vorinostat response accurately, whereas single gene or pathway markers cannot. Our analyses recapitulated and contextualized many previous findings and suggest an important role for processes such as chromatin remodeling, autophagy, and apoptosis. As a proof of concept, we also discovered a novel causative role for CHD4, a helicase involved in the histone deacetylase complex that is associated with poor clinical outcome. As a clinical validation, we demonstrated that a common dose-limiting toxicity of vorinostat, thrombocytopenia, can be predicted (r = 0.55, P = .004) several days before it is detected clinically. CONCLUSION: Our work suggests a paradigm shift from single-gene/pathway evaluation to simultaneously evaluating multiple independent high-throughput gene expression datasets, which can be easily extended to other investigational compounds where similar issues are hampering clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Many disparate biomarkers have been proposed as predictors of response to histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDI); however, all have failed when applied clinically. Rather than this being entirely an issue of reproducibility, response to the HDI vorinostat may be determined by the additive effect of multiple molecular factors, many of which have previously been demonstrated. METHODS: We conducted a large-scale gene expression analysis using the Cancer Genome Project for discovery and generated another large independent cancer cell line dataset across different cancers for validation. We compared different approaches in terms of how accurately vorinostat response can be predicted on an independent out-of-batch set of samples and applied the polygenic marker prediction principles in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Using machine learning, the small effects that aggregate, resulting in sensitivity or resistance, can be recovered from gene expression data in a large panel of cancer cell lines.This approach can predict vorinostat response accurately, whereas single gene or pathway markers cannot. Our analyses recapitulated and contextualized many previous findings and suggest an important role for processes such as chromatin remodeling, autophagy, and apoptosis. As a proof of concept, we also discovered a novel causative role for CHD4, a helicase involved in the histone deacetylase complex that is associated with poor clinical outcome. As a clinical validation, we demonstrated that a common dose-limiting toxicity of vorinostat, thrombocytopenia, can be predicted (r = 0.55, P = .004) several days before it is detected clinically. CONCLUSION: Our work suggests a paradigm shift from single-gene/pathway evaluation to simultaneously evaluating multiple independent high-throughput gene expression datasets, which can be easily extended to other investigational compounds where similar issues are hampering clinical adoption.
Authors: Chu Chang Chua; Jinping Gao; Ye-Shih Ho; Xingshun Xu; I-Chun Kuo; Kaw-Yan Chua; Hong Wang; Ronald C Hamdy; John C Reed; Balvin H L Chua Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: A A Ruefli; M J Ausserlechner; D Bernhard; V R Sutton; K M Tainton; R Kofler; M J Smyth; R W Johnstone Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Valeria R Fantin; Andrey Loboda; Cloud P Paweletz; Ronald C Hendrickson; Jacqueline W Pierce; Jennifer A Roth; Lixia Li; Frank Gooden; Susan Korenchuk; Xiaoli S Hou; Elizabeth A Harrington; Sophia Randolph; John F Reilly; Christopher M Ware; Marshall E Kadin; Stanley R Frankel; Victoria M Richon Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Susan Fotheringham; Mirjam T Epping; Lindsay Stimson; Omar Khan; Victoria Wood; Francesco Pezzella; René Bernards; Nicholas B La Thangue Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Michael S Lawrence; Petar Stojanov; Craig H Mermel; James T Robinson; Levi A Garraway; Todd R Golub; Matthew Meyerson; Stacey B Gabriel; Eric S Lander; Gad Getz Journal: Nature Date: 2014-01-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Carl F Schaefer; Kira Anthony; Shiva Krupa; Jeffrey Buchoff; Matthew Day; Timo Hannay; Kenneth H Buetow Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Paul Geeleher; Zhenyu Zhang; Fan Wang; Robert F Gruener; Aritro Nath; Gladys Morrison; Steven Bhutra; Robert L Grossman; R Stephanie Huang Journal: Genome Res Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Steven L Raymond; Russell B Hawkins; Zhongkai Wang; Juan C Mira; Julie A Stortz; Feifei Han; Jennifer D Lanz; Laura V Hennessy; Babette A Brumback; Henry V Baker; Philip A Efron; Scott C Brakenridge; Wenzhong Xiao; Ronald G Tompkins; Joseph Cuschieri; Frederick A Moore; Ronald V Maier; Lyle L Moldawer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Anne Vehlow; Erik Klapproth; Katja Storch; Ellen Dickreuter; Michael Seifert; Antje Dietrich; Rebecca Bütof; Achim Temme; Nils Cordes Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-25