Improving drug discovery using image-based multiparametric analysis of epigenetic landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the advent of automatic cell imaging and machine learning, high-content phenotypic screening has become the approach of choice for drug discovery due to its ability to extract drug specific multilayered data and compare it to known profiles. In the field of epigenetics such screening approaches has suffered from the lack of tools sensitive to selective epigenetic perturbations. Here we describe a novel approach Microscopic Imaging of Epigenetic Landscapes (MIEL) that captures patterns of nuclear staining of epigenetic marks (e.g. acetylated and methylated histones) and employs machine learning to accurately distinguish between such patterns (1). We demonstrated that MIEL has superior resolution compared to conventional intensity thresholding techniques and enables efficient detection of epigenetically active compounds, function-based classification, flagging possible off-target effects and even predict novel drug function. We validated MIEL platform across multiple cells lines and using dose-response curves to insure the robustness of this approach for the high content high throughput drug discovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".