ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Mechanistic modeling of cell viability assays with in silico lineage tracing.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data from cell viability assays, which measure cumulative division and death events in a population and reflect substantial cellular heterogeneity, are widely available. However, interpreting such data with mechanistic computational models is hindered because direct model/data comparison is often muddled. We developed an algorithm that tracks simulated division and death events in mechanistically-detailed single-cell lineages to enable such a model/data comparison and suggest causes of cell-cell drug response variability. Using our previously developed model of mammalian single-cell proliferation and death signaling, we simulated drug dose response experiments for four targeted anti-cancer drugs (alpelisib, neratinib, trametinib and palbociclib) and compared them to experimental data. Simulations are consistent with data for strong growth inhibition by trametinib (MEK inhibitor) and overall lack of efficacy for alpelisib (PI-3K inhibitor), but are inconsistent with data for palbociclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) and neratinib (EGFR inhibitor). Model/data inconsistencies suggest that (i) the importance of CDK4/6 for driving the cell cycle may be overestimated, and (ii) the cellular balance between basal (tonic) and ligand-induced signaling is a critical determinant of receptor inhibitor response. Simulations show subpopulations of rapidly and slowly dividing cells in both control and drug-treated conditions. Variations in mother cells prior to drug treatment impinging on ERK pathway activity are associated with the rapidly dividing phenotype and trametinib resistance. This work lays a foundation for the application of mechanistic modeling to large-scale cell viability datasets and better understanding determinants of cellular heterogeneity in drug response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.