Systems analysis of apoptosis protein expression allows the case-specific prediction of cell death responsiveness of melanoma cells.

Many cancer entities and their associated cell line models are highly heterogeneous in their responsiveness to apoptosis inducers and, despite a detailed understanding of the underlying signaling networks, cell death susceptibility currently cannot be predicted reliably from protein expression profiles. Here, we demonstrate that an integration of quantitative apoptosis protein expression data with pathway knowledge can predict the cell death responsiveness of melanoma cell lines. By a total of 612 measurements, we determined the absolute expression (nM) of 17 core apoptosis regulators in a panel of 11 melanoma cell lines, and enriched these data with systems-level information on apoptosis pathway topology. By applying multivariate statistical analysis and multi-dimensional pattern recognition algorithms, the responsiveness of individual cell lines to tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) or dacarbazine (DTIC) could be predicted with very high accuracy (91 and 82% correct predictions), and the most effective treatment option for individual cell lines could be pre-determined in silico. In contrast, cell death responsiveness was poorly predicted when not taking knowledge on protein-protein interactions into account (55 and 36% correct predictions). We also generated mathematical predictions on whether anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 family members or x-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP) can be targeted to enhance TRAIL responsiveness in individual cell lines. Subsequent experiments, making use of pharmacological Bcl-2/Bcl-xL inhibition or siRNA-based XIAP depletion, confirmed the accuracy of these predictions. We therefore demonstrate that cell death responsiveness to TRAIL or DTIC can be predicted reliably in a large number of melanoma cell lines when investigating expression patterns of apoptosis regulators in the context of their network-level interplay. The capacity to predict responsiveness at the cellular level may contribute to personalizing anti-cancer treatments in the future

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: Explanation and elaboration

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. © 2013 McShane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd