Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994939›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2016

Pointwise mutual information quantifies intratumor heterogeneity in tissue sections labeled with multiple fluorescent biomarkers.

Daniel M Spagnolo, Rekha Gyanchandani, Yousef Al-Kofahi, Andrew M Stern, Timothy R Lezon, Albert Gough, Dan E Meyer, Fiona Ginty, Brion Sarachan, Jeffrey Fine and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cell reports methods · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Single-cell heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Biologically Relevant Heterogeneity: Metrics and Practical Insights.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Daniel M SpagnoloProgram in Computational Biology, Joint Carnegie Mellon University-University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Rekha GyanchandaniDepartment of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Yousef Al-KofahiGE Global Research Center, Diagnostics, Imaging and Biomedical Technologies, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
Andrew M SternDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Drug Discovery Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Timothy R LezonDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Drug Discovery Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Albert GoughDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Drug Discovery Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Dan E MeyerGE Global Research Center, Diagnostics, Imaging and Biomedical Technologies, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
Fiona GintyGE Global Research Center, Diagnostics, Imaging and Biomedical Technologies, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
Brion SarachanGE Global Research Center, Software Science and Analytics Organization, Niskayuna, NY, USA.
Jeffrey FineDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Adrian V LeeDepartment of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
D Lansing TaylorDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Drug Discovery Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
S Chakra ChennubhotlaDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JOHN C. BYRD · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
TrainingU54HG008540 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BAHAR, IVET, BERG, JEREMY M · 2014 to 2018
$12.8M
Integrated Interdisciplinary, inter-university PhD Program Computational Biology (T32)T32EB009403 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BAHAR, IVET, BAR-JOSEPH, ZIV · 2009 to 2023
$4.4M
Informatics Tools for Tumor Heterogeneity in Multiplexed Fluorescence ImagesU01CA204826 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SARACHAN, BRION DARYL, TAYLOR, D. LANSING · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904NCI NIH HHS U01 CA204826NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG008540NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasures of spatial intratumor heterogeneity are potentially important diagnostic biomarkers for cancer progression, proliferation, and response to therapy. Spatial relationships among cells including cancer and stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME) are key contributors to heterogeneity.

methodsWe demonstrate how to quantify spatial heterogeneity from immunofluorescence pathology samples, using a set of 3 basic breast cancer biomarkers as a test case. We learn a set of dominant biomarker intensity patterns and map the spatial distribution of the biomarker patterns with a network. We then describe the pairwise association statistics for each pattern within the network using pointwise mutual information (PMI) and visually represent heterogeneity with a two-dimensional map.

resultsWe found a salient set of 8 biomarker patterns to describe cellular phenotypes from a tissue microarray cohort containing 4 different breast cancer subtypes. After computing PMI for each pair of biomarker patterns in each patient and tumor replicate, we visualize the interactions that contribute to the resulting association statistics. Then, we demonstrate the potential for using PMI as a diagnostic biomarker, by comparing PMI maps and heterogeneity scores from patients across the 4 different cancer subtypes. Estrogen receptor positive invasive lobular carcinoma patient, AL13-6, exhibited the highest heterogeneity score among those tested, while estrogen receptor negative invasive ductal carcinoma patient, AL13-14, exhibited the lowest heterogeneity score.

conclusionsThis paper presents an approach for describing intratumor heterogeneity, in a quantitative fashion (via PMI), which departs from the purely qualitative approaches currently used in the clinic. PMI is generalizable to highly multiplexed/hyperplexed immunofluorescence images, as well as spatial data from complementary in situ methods including FISSEQ and CyTOF, sampling many different components within the TME. We hypothesize that PMI will uncover key spatial interactions in the TME that contribute to disease proliferation and progression.

Indexed as

Computational pathologymultiplexed immunofluorescencepointwise mutual informationtumor heterogeneitytumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID27994939
PMCPMC5139455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.