Transcription Factor Activities Enhance Markers of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transcriptional dysregulation induced by aberrant transcription factors (TF) is a key feature of cancer, but its global influence on drug sensitivity has not been examined. Here, we infer the transcriptional activity of 127 TFs through analysis of RNA-seq gene expression data newly generated for 448 cancer cell lines, combined with publicly available datasets to survey a total of 1,056 cancer cell lines and 9,250 primary tumors. Predicted TF activities are supported by their agreement with independent shRNA essentiality profiles and homozygous gene deletions, and recapitulate mutant-specific mechanisms of transcriptional dysregulation in cancer. By analyzing cell line responses to 265 compounds, we uncovered numerous TFs whose activity interacts with anticancer drugs. Importantly, combining existing pharmacogenomic markers with TF activities often improves the stratification of cell lines in response to drug treatment. Our results, which can be queried freely at dorothea.opentargets.io, offer a broad foundation for discovering opportunities to refine personalized cancer therapies. Significance: Systematic analysis of transcriptional dysregulation in cancer cell lines and patient tumor specimens offers a publicly searchable foundation to discover new opportunities to refine personalized cancer therapies. Cancer Res; 78(3); 769–80. ©2017 AACR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".