Abstract:Background: In 2012, two large pharmacogenomic studies, the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE), were published, each reported gene expression data and measures of drug response for a large number of drugs and hundreds of cell lines. In 2013, we published a comparative analysis that reported gene expression profiles for the 471 cell lines profiled in both studies and dose response measurements for the 15 drugs characterized in the common cell lines by both studies. While we found good concordance in gene expression profiles, there was substantial inconsistency in the drug responses reported by the GDSC and CCLE projects. Our paper was widely discussed and we received extensive feedback on the comparisons that we performed. This feedback, along with the release of new data, prompted us to revisit our initial analysis. Here we present a new analysis using these expanded data in which we address the most significant suggestions for improvements on our published analysis: that drugs with different response characteristics should have been treated differently, that targeted therapies and broad cytotoxic drugs should have been treated differently in assessing consistency, that consistency of both molecular profiles and drug sensitivity measurements should both be compared across cell lines to accurately assess differences in the studies, that we missed some biomarkers that are consistent between studies, and that the software analysis tools we provided with our analysis should have been easier to run, particularly as the GDSC and CCLE released additional data. Methods: For each drug, we used published sensitivity data from the GDSC and CCLE to separately estimate drug dose-response curves. We then used two statistics, the area between drug dose-response curves (ABC) and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), to robustly estimate the consistency of continuous and discrete drug sensitivity measures, respectively. We also used recently released RNA-seq data together with previously published gene expression microarray data to assess inter-platform reproducibility of cell line gene expression profiles. Results: This re-analysis supports our previous finding that gene expression data are significantly more consistent than drug sensitivity measurements. The use of new statistics to assess data consistency allowed us to identify two broad effect drugs — 17-AAG and PD-0332901 — and three targeted drugs — PLX4720, nilotinib and crizotinib — with moderate to good consistency in drug sensitivity data between GDSC and CCLE. Not enough sensitive cell lines were screened in both studies to robustly assess consistency for three other targeted drugs, PHA-665752, erlotinib, and sorafenib. Concurring with our published results, we found evidence of inconsistencies in pharmacological phenotypes for the remaining eight drugs. Further, to discover “consistency” between studies required the use of multiple statistics and the selection of specific measures on a case-by-case basis. Conclusion: Our results reaffirm our initial findings of an inconsistency in drug sensitivity measures for eight of fifteen drugs screened both in GDSC and CCLE, irrespective of which statistical metric was used to assess correlation. Taken together, our findings suggest that the phenotypic data on drug response in the GDSC and CCLE continue to present challenges for robust biomarker discovery. This re-analysis provides additional support for the argument that experimental standardization and validation of pharmacogenomic response will be necessary to advance the broad use of large pharmacogenomic screens.

Misspellings or “miscellings”-non-verifiable cell lines in cancer research publications

Misspellings or "miscellings"—Non‐verifiable and unknown cell lines in cancer research publications

Rapid determination of aristolochic acid I and II in Aristolochia plants from different regions by beta-cyclodextrin-modified capillary zone electrophoresis.

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

An Interactive Resource to Probe Genetic Diversity and Estimated Ancestry in Cancer Cell Lines

The ghosts of HeLa: How cell line misidentification contaminates the scientific literature

Cell Line Misidentification: the Case of the Chang Liver Cell Line

Human Biosample Authentication Using the High-Throughput, Cost-Effective SNPtraceTM System

On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature

Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines

Challenges in Detecting Somatic Recombination of Repeat Elements: Insights from Short and Long Read Datasets

The Possibility of Systematic Research Fraud Targeting Under-Studied Human Genes: Causes, Consequences, and Potential Solutions

Prevalence of errors in lab-made plasmids across the globe

Advantages of a 21-loci short tandem repeat method for detection of cross-contamination in human cell lines

Cell line name recognition in support of the identification of synthetic lethality in cancer from text

Revisiting Inconsistency in Large Pharmacogenomic Studies

SeqVerify: An accessible analysis tool for cell line genomic integrity, contamination, and gene editing outcomes

A multicenter study on accuracy and reproducibility of nanopore sequencing-based genotyping of bacterial pathogens

Abstract 861: Improvements in variant calling sensitivity and specificity in single-cell DNA sequencing using deep learning

Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cell Lines: Reliable Alternatives to Primary Nasopharyngeal Cells?

Variable characteristics overlooked in human K-562 leukemia cell lines with a common signature