Cited by 321Computational Drug Discovery MethodsGene Regulatory Network AnalysisGene expression and cancer classification

A community computational challenge to predict the activity of pairs of compounds

Open access
NCI-DREAM Community, Bansal, Mukesh, Yang, Jichen, Karan, Charles, Menden, Michael P, Costello, James C, Tang, Hao, Xiao, Guanghua +17 more·2014·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Recent therapeutic successes have renewed interest in drug combinations, but experimental screening approaches are costly and often identify only small numbers of synergistic combinations. The DREAM consortium launched an open challenge to foster the development of in silico methods to computationally rank 91 compound pairs, from the most synergistic to the most antagonistic, based on gene-expression profiles of human B cells treated with individual compounds at multiple time points and concentrations. Using scoring metrics based on experimental dose-response curves, we assessed 32 methods (31 community-generated approaches and SynGen), four of which performed significantly better than random guessing. We highlight similarities between the methods. Although the accuracy of predictions was not optimal, we find that computational prediction of compound-pair activity is possible, and that community challenges can be useful to advance the field of in silico compound-synergy prediction.

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 · 10.1038/nbt.3052

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Initiatives like DREAM Challenges, MoleculeNet, and Therapeutic Data Commons offer benchmark data sets across a wide spectrum of prediction tasks for pharmacology.

    “Initiatives like the DREAM Challenges,284 MoleculeNet,110 and Therapeutic Data Commons285 offer benchmark data sets across a wide spectrum of prediction tasks for pharmacology.”

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. [32]Chen JC Regulatory network based analysis of genetic alterations reveals deletion of KLHL9 E3 ligase complex adapter protein as a driver of mesenchymal signature in glioblastoma Cell (in the press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Community, N.-D., Bansal, M., Yang, J., Karan, C., Menden, M. P., Costello, J. C., Tang, H., Xiao, G., Li, Y., Allen, J., Zhong, R., Chen, B., Kim, M., Wang, T., Heiser, L. M., Realubit, R., Mattioli, M., Alvarez, M. J., Shen, Y., Gallahan, D., Singer, D., Saez-Rodriguez, J., Xie, Y., Stolovitzky, G., & Califano, A.
Affiliations
  • Center for Genomic Science (IT)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Boston University (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Italian Institute of Technology (IT)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Xie, Yang
  • Stolovitzky, Gustavo
  • Califano, Andrea
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2014-11-17
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
1213-1222
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2036291018
Cited by
321
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 21
FWCI
25.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • İYTE (İZMİR YÜKSEK TEKNOLOJİ ENSTİTÜSÜ) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • IYTE GCRIS Database (Izmir Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • PMC
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP101251)
  • Wellcome Trust (104104)
  • National Institutes of Health (RP101251)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL111566)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG003284)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA121852, CA-112970, U01CA164184, U01CA168426, R01CA152301, P50CA058207, P30CA016672, U54CA112970)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM071966, R01GM081871)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
combination therapy, antagonism, in silico prediction, DREAM challenge, community problems, gene expression profiles, human B cells, dose-response curves, syngens
MeSH terms
Algorithms, B-Lymphocytes, Computer Simulation, Drug Combinations, Drug Synergism, Humans

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