Cited by 16Cell Image Analysis TechniquesComputational Drug Discovery MethodsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

Robust Classification of Small-Molecule Mechanism of Action Using a Minimalist High-Content Microscopy Screen and Multidimensional Phenotypic Trajectory Analysis

Open access
Twarog, Nathaniel R., Low, Jonathan A., Currier, Duane G., Miller, Greg, Chen, Taosheng, Shelat, Anang A.·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Phenotypic screening through high-content automated microscopy is a powerful tool for evaluating the mechanism of action of candidate therapeutics. Despite more than a decade of development, however, high content assays have yielded mixed results, identifying robust phenotypes in only a small subset of compound classes. This has led to a combinatorial explosion of assay techniques, analyzing cellular phenotypes across dozens of assays with hundreds of measurements. Here, using a minimalist three-stain assay and only 23 basic cellular measurements, we developed an analytical approach that leverages informative dimensions extracted by linear discriminant analysis to evaluate similarity between the phenotypic trajectories of different compounds in response to a range of doses. This method enabled us to visualize biologically-interpretable phenotypic tracks populated by compounds of similar mechanism of action, cluster compounds according to phenotypic similarity, and classify novel compounds by comparing them to phenotypically active exemplars. Hierarchical clustering applied to 154 compounds from over a dozen different mechanistic classes demonstrated tight agreement with published compound mechanism classification. Using 11 phenotypically active mechanism classes, classification was performed on all 154 compounds: 78% were correctly identified as belonging to one of the 11 exemplar classes or to a different unspecified class, with accuracy increasing to 89% when less phenotypically active compounds were excluded. Importantly, several apparent clustering and classification failures, including rigosertib and 5-fluoro-2'-deoxycytidine, instead revealed more complex mechanisms or off-target effects verified by more recent publications. These results show that a simple, easily replicated, minimalist high-content assay can reveal subtle variations in the cellular phenotype induced by compounds and can correctly predict mechanism of action, as long as the appropriate analytical tools are used.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0149439

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.

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?

  • Dose-dependent phenotypic trajectories can provide additional layers of information that assist in discriminating the activity of different compounds.

    “While screening at multiple concentrations incurs additional experimental complexity and investment of time and resources, we found that dose-dependent phenotypic trajectories can provide additional layers of information that assist in discriminating the activity of different compounds, reinforcing observations from a previous study that sought to classify compound MOAs based on dose-dependent tra”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 16

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Newman EM, Longmate J, Lenz H, Carroll M, Stalter S, Lim D, et al Phase I and clinical pharmacokinetic evaluation of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor 5-fluoro-2'-deoxycytidine: a California Cancer Consortium Study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2002; 21: 108a.

Authors
Twarog, N. R., Low, J. A., Currier, D. G., Miller, G., Chen, T., & Shelat, A. A.
Affiliations
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Shelat, Anang A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-02-17
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
e0149439
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2276949837
Cited by
16
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Keywords
small molecule drugs, high-content imaging, phenotypic screening, linear discriminant analysis, hierarchical clustering, compound clustering, off-target effects, rigosertib
MeSH terms
DNA Damage, HeLa Cells, Histones, Humans, Microscopy, Phenotype, Cluster Analysis, Discriminant Analysis, Principal Component Analysis, 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