Navigating Transcriptomic Connectivity Mapping Workflows to Link Chemicals with Bioactivities
Open accessAbstract
Screening new compounds for potential bioactivities against cellular targets is vital for drug discovery and chemical safety. Transcriptomics offers an efficient approach for assessing global gene expression changes, but interpreting chemical mechanisms from these data is often challenging. Connectivity mapping is a potential data-driven avenue for linking chemicals to mechanisms based on the observation that many biological processes are associated with unique gene expression signatures (gene signatures). However, mining the effects of a chemical on gene signatures for biological mechanisms is challenging because transcriptomic data contain thousands of noisy genes. New connectivity mapping approaches seeking to distinguish signal from noise continue to be developed, spurred by the promise of discovering chemical mechanisms, new drugs, and disease targets from burgeoning transcriptomic data. Here, we analyze these approaches in terms of diverse transcriptomic technologies, public databases, gene signatures, pattern-matching algorithms, and statistical evaluation criteria. To navigate the complexity of connectivity mapping, we propose a harmonized scheme to coherently organize and compare published workflows. We first standardize concepts underlying transcriptomic profiles and gene signatures based on various transcriptomic technologies such as microarrays, RNA-Seq, and L1000 and discuss the widely used data sources such as Gene Expression Omnibus, ArrayExpress, and MSigDB. Next, we generalize connectivity mapping as a pattern-matching task for finding similarity between a query (e.g., transcriptomic profile for new chemical) and a reference (e.g., gene signature of known target). Published pattern-matching approaches fall into two main categories: vector-based use metrics like correlation, Jaccard index, etc., and aggregation-based use parametric and nonparametric statistics (e.g., gene set enrichment analysis). The statistical methods for evaluating the performance of different approaches are described, along with comparisons reported in the literature on benchmark transcriptomic data sets. Lastly, we review connectivity mapping applications in toxicology and offer guidance on evaluating chemical-induced toxicity with concentration-response transcriptomic data. In addition to serving as a high-level guide and tutorial for understanding and implementing connectivity mapping workflows, we hope this review will stimulate new algorithms for evaluating chemical safety and drug discovery using transcriptomic data.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506580102 · Cited by 53,625 · see citing works
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Toward understanding the origin and evolution of cellular organisms
Kanehisa, M. (2019) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.3715 · Cited by 5,509 · see citing works
A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform and the First 1,000,000 Profiles
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., et al. (2017) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.049 · Cited by 3,515 · see citing works
A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis
Conesa, A., Madrigal, P., Tarazona, S., Gomez-Cabrero, D., Cervera, A., McPherson, A., Szcześniak, M. W., Gaffney, D. J., Elo, L. L., Zhang, X., et al. (2016) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-016-0881-8 · Cited by 2,794 · see citing works
Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis
Leek, J. T., & Storey, J. D. (2007) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030161 · Cited by 1,930 · see citing works
The BioPAX community standard for pathway data sharing
Demir, E., Cary, M. P., Paley, S., Fukuda, K., Lemer, C., Vastrik, I., Wu, G., D'Eustachio, P., Schaefer, C., Luciano, J., et al. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1666 · Cited by 745 · see citing works
Self-citationKeenan, A. B., Jenkins, S. L., Jagodnik, K. M., Koplev, S., He, E., Torre, D., Wang, Z., Dohlman, A. B., Silverstein, M. C., Lachmann, A., et al. (2018) · Cell Systems · doi:10.1016/j.cels.2017.11.001 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project
Mansouri, K., Abdelaziz, A., Rybacka, A., Roncaglioni, A., Tropsha, A., Varnek, A., Zakharov, A., Worth, A., Richard, A. M., Grulke, C. M., et al. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1510267 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Self-citationApplications of Connectivity Map in drug discovery and development
Qu, X. A., & Rajpal, D. K. (2012) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2012.07.017 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Sequencing technology does not eliminate biological variability
Hansen, K. D., Wu, Z., Irizarry, R. A., & Leek, J. T. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1910 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
DRUG-seq for miniaturized high-throughput transcriptome profiling in drug discovery
Ye, C., Ho, D. J., Neri, M., Yang, C., Kulkarni, T., Randhawa, R., Henault, M., Mostacci, N., Farmer, P., Renner, S., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06500-x · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Koleti, A., Terryn, R., Stathias, V., Chung, C., Cooper, D. J., Turner, J. P., Vidović, D., Forlin, M., Kelley, T. T., D’Urso, A., et al. (2018) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1063 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Shah, I., Bundy, J., Chambers, B., Everett, L. J., Haggard, D., Harrill, J., Judson, R. S., Nyffeler, J., & Patlewicz, G.
- Affiliations
- Environmental Protection Agency (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shah, Imran
- ORCID
- Venue
- Chemical Research in Toxicology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2022-10-27
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1929-1949
- ISSN
- 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5010
- PMC
- PMC10483698
- OpenAlex
- W4307407889
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Department of Energy
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Keywords
- connectivity mapping, transcriptomics, gene expression signatures, reaction mechanism, pattern matching, gene set enrichment analysis, gene expression profiling, chemical toxicity, drug discovery, L1000, RNA-seq, microarray, MSigDB, benchmark dataset, chemical safety
- MeSH terms
- Databases, Factual, Gene Expression Profiling, Drug Discovery, Workflow, Transcriptome
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