A critical evaluation of network and pathway based classifiers for outcome prediction in breast cancer

Recently, several classifiers that combine primary tumor data, like gene expression data, and secondary data sources, such as protein-protein interaction networks, have been proposed for predicting outcome in breast cancer. In these approaches, new composite features are typically constructed by aggregating the expression levels of several genes. The secondary data sources are employed to guide this aggregation. Although many studies claim that these approaches improve classification performance over single gene classifiers, the gain in performance is difficult to assess. This stems mainly from the fact that different breast cancer data sets and validation procedures are employed to assess the performance. Here we address these issues by employing a large cohort of six breast cancer data sets as benchmark set and by performing an unbiased evaluation of the classification accuracies of the different approaches. Contrary to previous claims, we find that composite feature classifiers do not outperform simple single gene classifiers. We investigate the effect of (1) the number of selected features; (2) the specific gene set from which features are selected; (3) the size of the training set and (4) the heterogeneity of the data set on the performance of composite feature and single gene classifiers. Strikingly, we find that randomization of secondary data sources, which destroys all biological information in these sources, does not result in a deterioration in performance of composite feature classifiers. Finally, we show that when a proper correction for gene set size is performed, the stability of single gene sets is similar to the stability of composite feature sets. Based on these results there is currently no reason to prefer prognostic classifiers based on composite features over single gene classifiers for predicting outcome in breast cancer

The actin-myosin regulatory MRCK kinases: regulation, biological functions and associations with human cancer

The contractile actin-myosin cytoskeleton provides much of the force required for numerous cellular activities such as motility, adhesion, cytokinesis and changes in morphology. Key elements that respond to various signal pathways are the myosin II regulatory light chains (MLC), which participate in actin-myosin contraction by modulating the ATPase activity and consequent contractile force generation mediated by myosin heavy chain heads. Considerable effort has focussed on the role of MLC kinases, and yet the contributions of the myotonic dystrophy-related Cdc42-binding kinases (MRCK) proteins in MLC phosphorylation and cytoskeleton regulation have not been well characterized. In contrast to the closely related ROCK1 and ROCK2 kinases that are regulated by the RhoA and RhoC GTPases, there is relatively little information about the CDC42-regulated MRCKα, MRCKβ and MRCKγ members of the AGC (PKA, PKG and PKC) kinase family. As well as differences in upstream activation pathways, MRCK and ROCK kinases apparently differ in the way that they spatially regulate MLC phosphorylation, which ultimately affects their influence on the organization and dynamics of the actin-myosin cytoskeleton. In this review, we will summarize the MRCK protein structures, expression patterns, small molecule inhibitors, biological functions and associations with human diseases such as cancer

Stromal Genes Add Prognostic Information to Proliferation and Histoclinical Markers: A Basis for the Next Generation of Breast Cancer Gene Signatures

BACKGROUND: First-generation gene signatures that identify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence are confined to estrogen-positive cases and are driven by genes involved in the cell cycle and proliferation. Previously we induced sets of stromal genes that are prognostic for both estrogen-positive and estrogen-negative samples. Creating risk-management tools that incorporate these stromal signatures, along with existing proliferation-based signatures and established clinicopathological measures such as lymph node status and tumor size, should better identify women at greatest risk for metastasis and death. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To investigate the strength and independence of the stromal and proliferation factors in estrogen-positive and estrogen-negative patients we constructed multivariate Cox proportional hazards models along with tree-based partitions of cancer cases for four breast cancer cohorts. Two sets of stromal genes, one consisting of DCN and FBLN1, and the other containing LAMA2, add substantial prognostic value to the proliferation signal and to clinical measures. For estrogen receptor-positive patients, the stromal-decorin set adds prognostic value independent of proliferation for three of the four datasets. For estrogen receptor-negative patients, the stromal-laminin set significantly adds prognostic value in two datasets, and marginally in a third. The stromal sets are most prognostic for the unselected population studies and may depend on the age distribution of the cohorts. CONCLUSION: The addition of stromal genes would measurably improve the performance of proliferation-based first-generation gene signatures, especially for older women. Incorporating indicators of the state of stromal cell types would mark a conceptual shift from epithelial-centric risk assessment to assessment based on the multiple cell types in the cancer-altered tissue