Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30777010›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Statistical assessment and visualization of synergies for large-scale sparse drug combination datasets.

Arnaud Amzallag, Sridhar Ramaswamy, Cyril H Benes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Heat-killedCurrent research in food science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Charting the Fragmented Landscape of Drug Synergy.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2020
    Review
  20. RCorp: a resource for chemical disease semantic extraction in Chinese.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
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

3 authors.

Arnaud AmzallagThe Center of Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, 149 13th Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. arnaud.amzallag@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7467-1227
Sridhar RamaswamyThe Center of Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, 149 13th Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA.
Cyril H BenesThe Center of Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, 149 13th Street, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. cbenes@mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 102696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug combinations have the potential to improve efficacy while limiting toxicity. To robustly identify synergistic combinations, high-throughput screens using full dose-response surface are desirable but require an impractical number of data points. Screening of a sparse number of doses per drug allows to screen large numbers of drug pairs, but complicates statistical assessment of synergy. Furthermore, since the number of pairwise combinations grows with the square of the number of drugs, exploration of large screens necessitates advanced visualization tools.

resultsWe describe a statistical and visualization framework for the analysis of large-scale drug combination screens. We developed an approach suitable for datasets with large number of drugs pairs even if small number of data points are available per drug pair. We demonstrate our approach using a systematic screen of all possible pairs among 108 cancer drugs applied to melanoma cell lines. In this dataset only two dose-response data points per drug pair and two data points per single drug test were available. We used a Bliss-based linear model, effectively borrowing data from the drug pairs to obtain robust estimations of the singlet viabilities, consequently yielding better estimates of drug synergy. Our method improves data consistency across dosing thus likely reducing the number of false positives. The approach allows to compute p values accounting for standard errors of the modeled singlets and combination viabilities. We further develop a synergy specificity score that distinguishes specific synergies from those arising with promiscuous drugs. Finally, we developed a summarized interactive visualization in a web application, providing efficient access to any of the 439,000 data points in the combination matrix ( http://www.cmtlab.org:3000/combo_app.html ). The code of the analysis and the web application is available at https://github.com/arnaudmgh/synergy-screen .

conclusionsWe show that statistical modeling of single drug response from drug combination data can help determine significance of synergy and antagonism in drug combination screens with few data point per drug pair. We provide a web application for the rapid exploration of large combinatorial drug screen. All codes are available to the community, as a resource for further analysis of published data and for analysis of other drug screens.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCell Line, TumorComputer GraphicsDatasets as TopicDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug SynergismHumansLinear ModelsBliss independenceCancer cell linesCancer therapyDrug combinationHigh-throughput screenMelanomaStatistical modelingSynergyVisualization

Identifiers

PMID30777010
PMCPMC6378741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.