Optimization of cell viability assays to improve replicability and reproducibility of cancer drug sensitivity screens.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 04 2020
02 04 2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
accepted:
25
02
2020
entrez:
4
4
2020
pubmed:
4
4
2020
medline:
25
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cancer drug development has been riddled with high attrition rates, in part, due to poor reproducibility of preclinical models for drug discovery. Poor experimental design and lack of scientific transparency may cause experimental biases that in turn affect data quality, robustness and reproducibility. Here, we pinpoint sources of experimental variability in conventional 2D cell-based cancer drug screens to determine the effect of confounders on cell viability for MCF7 and HCC38 breast cancer cell lines treated with platinum agents (cisplatin and carboplatin) and a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib). Variance component analysis demonstrated that variations in cell viability were primarily associated with the choice of pharmaceutical drug and cell line, and less likely to be due to the type of growth medium or assay incubation time. Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to different methods of storing diluted pharmaceutical drugs and use of DMSO controls due to the potential risk of evaporation and the subsequent effect on dose-response curves. Optimization of experimental parameters not only improved data quality substantially but also resulted in reproducible results for bortezomib- and cisplatin-treated HCC38, MCF7, MCF-10A, and MDA-MB-436 cells. Taken together, these findings indicate that replicability (the same analyst re-performs the same experiment multiple times) and reproducibility (different analysts perform the same experiment using different experimental conditions) for cell-based drug screens can be improved by identifying potential confounders and subsequent optimization of experimental parameters for each cell line.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32242081
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62848-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-62848-5
pmc: PMC7118156
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Bortezomib
69G8BD63PP
Carboplatin
BG3F62OND5
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Dimethyl Sulfoxide
YOW8V9698H
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5798Références
Hutchinson, L. & Kirk, R. High drug attrition rates - Where are we going wrong? Nature reviews. Clinical oncology 8, 189–190, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.34 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.34
Thomas, D. W. et al. Clinical Development Success Rates 2006-2015, https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/Clinical%20Development%20Success%20Rates%202006-2015%20-%20BIO,%20Biomedtracker,%20Amplion%202016.pdf (2015).
Toniatti, C., Jones, P., Graham, H., Pagliara, B. & Draetta, G. Oncology drug discovery: planning a turnaround. Cancer Discov 4, 397–404, https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-13-0452 (2014).
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-13-0452
Hay, M., Thomas, D. W., Craighead, J. L., Economides, C. & Rosenthal, J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 40–51, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2786 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/nbt.2786
pubmed: 24406927
Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603–607, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11003 (2012).
doi: 10.1038/nature11003
pubmed: 3320027
pmcid: 3320027
Hafner, M., Niepel, M., Chung, M. & Sorger, P. K. Growth rate inhibition metrics correct for confounders in measuring sensitivity to cancer drugs. Nat. Methods 13, 521–527, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3853 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3853
pubmed: 4887336
pmcid: 4887336
Haibe-Kains, B. et al. Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature 504, 389–393, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12831 (2013).
doi: 10.1038/nature12831
pubmed: 4237165
pmcid: 4237165
Hatzis, C. et al. Enhancing reproducibility in cancer drug screening: how do we move forward? Cancer Res. 74, 4016–4023, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-14-0725 (2014).
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-14-0725
pubmed: 4119520
pmcid: 4119520
Horvath, P. et al. Screening out irrelevant cell-based models of disease. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 15, 751–769, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.175 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.175
Jang, I. S., Neto, E. C., Guinney, J., Friend, S. H. & Margolin, A. A. Systematic assessment of analytical methods for drug sensitivity prediction from cancer cell line data. Pac. Symp. Biocomput, 63-74 (2014).
Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 10, 712, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1
Pushpakom, S. et al. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 18, 41–58, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.168 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2018.168
Stransky, N. et al. Pharmacogenomic agreement between two cancer cell line data sets. Nature 528, 84–87, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15736 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/nature15736
pubmed: 6343827
pmcid: 6343827
Pesch, K. L. & Simmert, U. Combined assays for lactose and galactose by enzymatic reactions. Milchw Forsch 8 (1929).
Jakstys, B., Ruzgys, P., Tamosiunas, M. & Satkauskas, S. Different Cell Viability Assays Reveal Inconsistent Results After Bleomycin Electrotransfer In Vitro. J. Membr. Biol. 248, 857–863, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00232-015-9813-x (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s00232-015-9813-x
Niepel, M. et al. A Multi-center Study on the Reproducibility of Drug-Response Assays in Mammalian Cell Lines. Cell. systems 9, 35–48.e35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.005 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2019.06.005
Riss, T. L. et al. in Assay Guidance Manual (eds G. S. Sittampalam et al.) (Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, (2004).
Haverty, P. M. et al. Reproducible pharmacogenomic profiling of cancer cell line panels. Nature 533, 333–337, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17987 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nature17987
Iversen, P. W., Eastwood, B. J., Sittampalam, G. S. & Cox, K. L. A comparison of assay performance measures in screening assays: signal window, Z’ factor, and assay variability ratio. J. Biomol Screen 11, 247–252, https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057105285610 (2006).
doi: 10.1177/1087057105285610
Chen, L. et al. mQC: A Heuristic Quality-Control Metric for High-Throughput Drug Combination Screening. Sci. Rep. 6, 37741, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37741 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/srep37741
pubmed: 5121902
pmcid: 5121902
Zhang, Z., Guan, N., Li, T., Mais, D. E. & Wang, M. Quality control of cell-based high-throughput drug screening. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2, 429–438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsb.2012.03.006 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2012.03.006
Brooks, E. A. et al. Applicability of drug response metrics for cancer studies using biomaterials. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol Sci. 374, 20180226, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0226 (2019).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0226
Gupta, A., Gautam, P., Wennerberg, K. & Aittokallio, T. A normalized drug response metric improves accuracy and consistency of anticancer drug sensitivity quantification in cell-based screening. Communications biology 3, 42–42, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0765-z (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-0765-z
pubmed: 6978361
pmcid: 6978361
Hafner, M., Niepel, M. & Sorger, P. K. Alternative drug sensitivity metrics improve preclinical cancer pharmacogenomics. Nature biotechnology 35, 500–502, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3882 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3882
pubmed: 5668135
pmcid: 5668135
Yadav, B. et al. Quantitative scoring of differential drug sensitivity for individually optimized anticancer therapies. Sci. Rep. 4, 5193, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05193 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/srep05193
pubmed: 4046135
pmcid: 4046135
Patil, P., Peng, R. D. & Leek, J. T. A visual tool for defining reproducibility and replicability. Nature Human Behaviour 3, 650–652, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0629-z (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0629-z
Petrocca, F. et al. A genome-wide siRNA screen identifies proteasome addiction as a vulnerability of basal-like triple-negative breast cancer cells. Cancer Cell 24, 182–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.008 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.008
pubmed: 3773329
pmcid: 3773329
Zhang, J. H., Chung, T. D. & Oldenburg, K. R. A Simple Statistical Parameter for Use in Evaluation and Validation of High Throughput Screening Assays. J. Biomol Screen 4, 67–73, https://doi.org/10.1177/108705719900400206 (1999).
doi: 10.1177/108705719900400206
Sittampalam, G. S., Kahl, S. D. & Janzen, W. P. High-throughput screening: advances in assay technologies. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol 1, 384–391 (1997).
doi: 10.1016/S1367-5931(97)80078-6
O’Connor, P. M. et al. Characterization of the p53 tumor suppressor pathway in cell lines of the National Cancer Institute anticancer drug screen and correlations with the growth-inhibitory potency of 123 anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 57, 4285–4300 (1997).
Hafner, M. et al. Quantification of sensitivity and resistance of breast cancer cell lines to anti-cancer drugs using GR metrics. Scientific data 4, 170166, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.166 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.166
pubmed: 5674849
pmcid: 5674849
Ding, K. F. et al. Analysis of variability in high throughput screening data: applications to melanoma cell lines and drug responses. Oncotarget 8, 27786–27799, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15347 (2017).
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15347
pubmed: 5438608
pmcid: 5438608
Divieto, C. & Sassi, M. P. A first approach to evaluate the cell dose in highly porous scaffolds by using a nondestructive metabolic method. Future Sci. OA 1, FSO58–FSO58, https://doi.org/10.4155/fso.15.58 (2015).
doi: 10.4155/fso.15.58
pubmed: 5137907
pmcid: 5137907
Ivanov, D. P. et al. Multiplexing spheroid volume, resazurin and acid phosphatase viability assays for high-throughput screening of tumour spheroids and stem cell neurospheres. PLoS One 9, e103817, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103817 (2014).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103817
pubmed: 4131917
pmcid: 4131917
Comsa, S., Cimpean, A. M. & Raica, M. The Story of MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cell Line: 40 years of Experience in Research. Anticancer research 35, 3147–3154 (2015).
Dasari, S. & Tchounwou, P. B. Cisplatin in cancer therapy: molecular mechanisms of action. European journal of pharmacology 740, 364–378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025
Field-Smith, A., Morgan, G. J. & Davies, F. E. Bortezomib (Velcadetrade mark) in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Ther Clin. Risk. Manag 2, 271–279, https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.3.271 (2006).
doi: 10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.3.271
pubmed: 1936263
pmcid: 1936263
Kong, F., Yuan, L., Zheng, Y. F. & Chen, W. Automatic liquid handling for life science: a critical review of the current state of the art. J. Lab. Autom 17, 169–185, https://doi.org/10.1177/2211068211435302 (2012).
doi: 10.1177/2211068211435302
Fang, C. Y., Wu, C. C., Fang, C. L., Chen, W. Y. & Chen, C. L. Long-term growth comparison studies of FBS and FBS alternatives in six head and neck cell lines. PLoS One 12, e0178960, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178960 (2017).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178960
pubmed: 5462426
pmcid: 5462426
Heger, J. I. et al. Human serum alters cell culture behavior and improves spheroid formation in comparison to fetal bovine serum. Experimental Cell Research 365, 57–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2018.02.017 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2018.02.017
Hongisto, V. et al. High-throughput 3D screening reveals differences in drug sensitivities between culture models of JIMT1 breast cancer cells. PLoS One 8, e77232, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077232 (2013).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077232
pubmed: 3806867
pmcid: 3806867
Smirnov, P. et al. PharmacoDB: an integrative database for mining in vitro anticancer drug screening studies. Nucleic Acids. Res. 46, D994–D1002, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx911 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx911
van der Vijgh, W. J. Clinical pharmacokinetics of carboplatin. Clin Pharmacokinet 21, 242–261, https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199121040-00002 (1991).
doi: 10.2165/00003088-199121040-00002
Leveque, D., Carvalho, M. C. & Maloisel, F. Review. Clinical pharmacokinetics of bortezomib. In Vivo 21, 273–278 (2007).
Eilenberger, C. et al. Optimized alamarBlue assay protocol for drug dose-response determination of 3D tumor spheroids. MethodsX 5, 781–787, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.07.011 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.07.011
pubmed: 6072978
pmcid: 6072978
Clark, N. A. et al. GRcalculator: an online tool for calculating and mining dose-response data. BMC Cancer 17, 698, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3689-3 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3689-3
pubmed: 5655815
pmcid: 5655815
O’Brien, J., Wilson, I., Orton, T. & Pognan, F. Investigation of the Alamar Blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity. Eur. J. Biochem 267, 5421–5426, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01606.x (2000).
doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01606.x
Kassambara, A. R package “ggpubr”: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. (2019).
Kassambara, A. R package “rstatix”: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests. (2019).
Larsson, P. et al. Optimization of cell viability assays to improve replicability and reproducibility of cancer drug sensitivity screens: CodeOcean. https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.8346890.v1 (2020).
Wickham, H. R package “ggplot2”: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (2016).