Cited by 3,515Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksComputational Drug Discovery Methods

A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform and the First 1,000,000 Profiles

Open access
Subramanian, Aravind, Narayan, Rajiv, Corsello, Steven M., Peck, David D., Natoli, Ted E., Lu, Xiaodong, Gould, Joshua, Davis, John F. +48 more·2017·Cell

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We previously piloted the concept of a Connectivity Map (CMap), whereby genes, drugs, and disease states are connected by virtue of common gene-expression signatures. Here, we report more than a 1,000-fold scale-up of the CMap as part of the NIH LINCS Consortium, made possible by a new, low-cost, high-throughput reduced representation expression profiling method that we term L1000. We show that L1000 is highly reproducible, comparable to RNA sequencing, and suitable for computational inference of the expression levels of 81% of non-measured transcripts. We further show that the expanded CMap can be used to discover mechanism of action of small molecules, functionally annotate genetic variants of disease genes, and inform clinical trials. The 1.3 million L1000 profiles described here, as well as tools for their analysis, are available at https://clue.io.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.049

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The magnitude of gene expression changes has been reported to correlate with functional impact.

    “The magnitude of gene expression changes has been reported to correlate with functional impact (Wawer et al. 2014; Subramanian et al. 2017)”

    From Murine single-cell RNA-seq reveals cell-identity- and tissue-specific trajectories of aging (2019) · cites this paper as Subramanian et al. 2017

    The Results section, “Identifying bioactive subsets of small molecule screening libraries” (page unavailable), links a strong transcriptional response to biological activity: 92% of established drugs, versus 15% of unoptimized compounds, had high transcriptional activity scores. The Methods define that score partly by the number of differentially expressed genes. This supports using expression-response strength as an indicator of activity, but the paper does not establish a correlation between the magnitude of gene-expression changes and the degree of functional impact. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A subset of expression measurements may be enough to infer many transcriptional states accurately.

    “many transcriptional states could be faithfully inferred from a subset of gene expression measurements32,33”
  • The L1000 panel could be used and has been shown to capture most transcriptome information across many perturbations.

    “Alternatively, gene panels such as the L1000 panel34 could be used (Extended Data Figure 3), which has been shown to capture the majority of information contained in the full transcriptome across a wide range of perturbations34.”
  • Perturbation modelling is underpinned by systematic databases of biological response to treatment and leverages machine learning to make predictive models such as molecular targets or IC50 values.

    “Perturbation modelling is underpinned by systematic databases of biological response to treatment (e.g. Connectivity Map [2], L1000, DRUG-seq [3]) and leverages the significant potential of machine learning (ML) to make predictive models, e.g., molecular targets or IC50 values.”
  • The LINCS consortium, and in particular the L1000 Connectivity Map resource, provides a catalog of postperturbation transcriptomics profiles for thousands of compounds, offering a global map of the phenotypic response landscape of the medicinal chemistry space.

    “Of note, the LINCS consortium, and in particular the L1000 Connectivity Map resource, provides a catalog of postperturbation transcriptomics profiles for thousands of compounds, offering a global map of the phenotypic response landscape of the medicinal chemistry space.205”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Illumina Inc 2007 BeadStudio Normalization Algorithms for Gene Expression Data Illumina Technical Bulletin Pub. No.470-2007-005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Subramanian, A., Narayan, R., Corsello, S. M., Peck, D. D., Natoli, T. E., Lu, X., Gould, J., Davis, J. F., Tubelli, A. A., Asiedu, J. K., Lahr, D. L., Hirschman, J. E., Liu, Z., Donahue, M., Julian, B., Khan, M., Wadden, D., Smith, I. C., Lam, D., Liberzon, A., Toder, C., Bagul, M., Orzechowski, M., Enache, O. M., Piccioni, F., Johnson, S. A., Lyons, N. J., Berger, A. H., Shamji, A. F., Brooks, A. N., Vrcic, A., Flynn, C., Rosains, J., Takeda, D. Y., Hu, R., Davison, D., Lamb, J., Ardlie, K., Hogstrom, L., Greenside, P., Gray, N. S., Clemons, P. A., Silver, S., Wu, X., Zhao, W.-N., Read-Button, W., Wu, X., Haggarty, S. J., Ronco, L. V., Boehm, J. S., Schreiber, S. L., Doench, J. G., Bittker, J. A., Root, D. E., Wong, B., & Golub, T. R.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Golub, Todd R.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
171
Issue
6
Pages
1437-1452.e17
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2612467560
Cited by
3,515
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 436 · 2025: 479 · 2024: 493 · 2023: 458 · 2022: 507 · 2021: 421 · 2020: 320 · 2019: 261 · 2018: 122 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 1
FWCI
80.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (U54HG006093, U54HL127366, U01HG008699, CA009172, TR001100)
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO Young
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
Connectivity Map, L1000, gene expression signatures, functional annotation of genetic variants, reproducibility, clinical trial design
MeSH terms
Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Neoplasms, Organ Specificity, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Gene Expression Profiling, Cell Line, Tumor, Small Molecule Libraries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review