Cited by 74Computational Drug Discovery MethodsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trialsthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses

Additive dose response models: defining synergy

Open access
Lederer, Simone, Dijkstra, Tjeerd M. H., Heskes, Tom·2019·Frontiers in Pharmacology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In synergy studies, one focuses on compound combinations that promise a synergistic or antagonistic effect. With the help of high-throughput techniques, a huge amount of compound combinations can be screened and filtered for suitable candidates for a more detailed analysis. Those promising candidates are chosen based on the deviance between a measured response and an expected non-interactive response. A non-interactive response is based on a principle of no interaction, such as Loewe Additivity or Bliss Independence. In a previous study, we introduced, an explicit formulation of the hitherto implicitly defined Loewe Additivity, the so-called Explicit Mean Equation. In the current study we show that this Explicit Mean Equation outperforms the original implicit formulation of Loewe Additivity and Bliss Independence when measuring synergy in terms of the deviance between measured and expected response, called the lack-of-fit. Further, we show that computing synergy as lack-of-fit outperforms a parametric approach. We show this on two datasets of compound combinations that are categorized into synergistic, non-interactive, and antagonistic.

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 · 10.3389/fphar.2019.01384

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Models requiring multiple doses, such as the Loewe additivity model and response surface-based methods, are not applicable to typical 4-group in vivo combination studies.

    “Models requiring multiple doses are not applicable, such as the Loewe additivity model and the response surface-based methods (18, 38).”

    From Statistical Assessment of Drug Synergy from <i>In Vivo</i> Combination Studies Using Mouse Tumor Models (2023) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Materials and Methods > Theory section (page unavailable) says the models construct response surfaces from each compound’s single-agent dose–response curve. Materials and Methods > Material describes an application using five doses per compound and 36 dose combinations. This supports the need for dose-series data, but the paper does not specifically assess typical four-group in vivo studies or state that these methods are inapplicable to them. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 35

  1. Nature Biomedical Engineering (2018). Powerful combination therapies. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 555– 556. 10.1038/s41551-018-0283-1 31015638 · DOI
  2. Berenbaum M. (1977). Synergy, additivism and antagonism in immunosuppression. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 28, 1– 18. 324671 PMC1540873
  3. Bliss C. (1939). The Toxicity Of Poisons Applied Jointly1. Ann. Appl. Biol. 26, 585– 615. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1939.tb06990.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. Borisy A. A. Elliott P. J. Hurst N. W. Lee M. S. Lehar J. Price E. R. (2003). Systematic discovery of multicomponent therapeutics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 7977– 7982. 10.1073/pnas.1337088100 12799470 PMC164698 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chou T.-C. Talalay P. (1977). A simple generalized equation for the analysis of multiple inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten kinetic systems. J. Biol. Chem. 252, 6438– 6442. 893418
  6. Chou T.-C. Talalay P. (1984). Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv. In Enzyme Regul. 22, 27– 55. 10.1016/0065-2571(84)90007-4 6382953 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cokol M. Chua H. N. Tasan M. Mutlu B. Weinstein Z. B. Suzuki Y. (2011). Systematic exploration of synergistic drug pairs. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 544. 10.1038/msb.2011.71 22068327 PMC3261710 · DOI
  8. Dawson K. S. Carter W. H. Gennings C. (2000). A statistical test for detecting and characterizing departures from additivity in drug/chemical combinations. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat 5, 342. 10.2307/1400458 · DOI
  9. Di Veroli G. Y. Fornari C. Wang D. Mollard S. Bramhall J. L. Richards F. M. (2016). Combenefit: an interactive platform for the analysis and visualisation of drug combinations. Bioinformatics 32, 2866– 2868. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw230 27153664 PMC5018366 · DOI
  10. Fang H.-B. Chen X. Pei X.-Y. Grant S. Tan M. (2017). Experimental design and statistical analysis for three-drug combination studies. Stat. Methods In Med. Res. 26, 1261– 1280. 10.1177/0962280215574320 25744107 · DOI
  11. Farha M. A. Brown E. D. (2010). Chemical probes of escherichia coli uncovered through chemical-chemical interaction profiling with compounds of known biological activity. Chem. Biol. 17, 852– 862. 10.1016/j.chembiol.2010.06.008 20797614 · DOI
  12. Geary N. (2012). Understanding Synergy. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 304, E237– E253. 10.1152/ajpendo.00308.2012 23211518 · DOI
  13. Gennings C. Carter W. H. (1995). Utilizing concentration-response data from individual components to detect statistically significant departures from additivity in chemical mixtures. Biometrics 51, 1264. 10.2307/2533258 · DOI
  14. Grüner B. M. Schulze C. J. Yang D. Ogasawara D. Dix M. M. Rogers Z. N. (2016). An in vivo multiplexed small-molecule screening platform. Nat. Methods 13, 883– 889. 10.1038/nmeth.3992 27617390 PMC5088491 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Greco W. R. Bravo G. Parsons J. C. (1995). The search of synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacol. Rev. 47, 331– 384. 7568331
  16. Hand D. J. (2000). “ Synergy in Drug Combinations,” in Data Analysis: Scientific Modeling and Practical Application, vol. 171 Eds. Gaul W. Opitz O. Schader M. (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 471– 475. 10.1007/978-3-642-58250-9\s\do5(3)8 · DOI
  17. Katzir I. Cokol M. Aldridge B. B. Alon U. (2019). Prediction of ultra-high-order antibiotic combinations based on pairwise interactions. PloS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006774. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006774 30699106 PMC6370231 · DOI
  18. Kendall M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 81– 93. 10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 · DOI
  19. Lamb J. Crawford E. D. Peck D. Modell J. W. Blat I. C. Wrobel M. J. (2006). The connectivity map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 313, 1929– 1935. 10.1126/science.1132939 17008526 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Lambert R. J. W. Dawson D. A. (2019). New models for the time dependent toxicity of individual and combined toxicants. Toxicol. Res. 8, 509– 521. 10.1039/C9TX00005D PMC6622042 31367334 · DOI
  21. Lederer S. Dijkstra T. M. H. Heskes T. (2018a). Additive dose response models: defining synergy. bioRxiv. 10.1101/480608 PMC6901947 31849651 · DOI
  22. Lederer S. Dijkstra T. M. H. Heskes T. (2018b). Additive dose response models: explicit formulation and the loewe additivity consistency condition. Front. In Pharmacol. 9, 1– 11. 10.3389/fphar.2018.00031 PMC5808155 29467650 · DOI
  23. Lehar J. Zimmermann G. R. Krueger A. S. Molnar R. A. Ledell J. T. Heilbut A. M. (2007). Chemical combination effects predict connectivity in biological systems. Mol. Syst. Biol. 3, 80. 10.1038/msb4100116 17332758 PMC1828746 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Loewe S. (1928). Die quantitativen Probleme der Pharmakologie. Ergebnisse der Physiologie 27, 47– 187. 10.1007/BF02322290 · DOI
  25. Mathews Griner L. A. Guha R. Shinn P. Young R. M. Keller J. M. Liu D. (2014). High-throughput combinatorial screening identifies drugs that cooperate with ibrutinib to kill activated B-cellâ€like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 2349– 2354. 10.1073/pnas.1311846111 24469833 PMC3926026 · DOI
  26. Menden M. P. Wang D. Mason M. J. Szalai B. Bulusu K. C. Guan Y. (2019). Community assessment to advance computational prediction of cancer drug combinations in a pharmacogenomic screen. Nat. Commun. 10, 2674. 10.1038/s41467-019-09799-2 31209238 PMC6572829 · DOI
  27. Meyer C. T. Wooten D. J. Paudel B. B. Bauer J. Hardeman K. N. Westover D. (2019). Quantifying Drug Combination Synergy along Potency and Efficacy Axes. Cell Syst. 8, 97– 108. e16. 10.1016/j.cels.2019.01.003 30797775 PMC6675406 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Minto C. F. Schnider T. W. Short T. G. Gregg K. M. Gentilini A. Shafer S. L. (2000). Response Surface Model for Anesthetic Drug Interactions. Anestesiology 92, 1603– 1606. 10.1097/00000542-200006000-00017 10839909 · DOI
  29. Norberg L. Wahlström G. (1988). Anaesthetic effects of flurazepam alone and in combination with thiopental or hexobarbital evaluated with an EEG-threshold method in male rats. Arch. Int. Pharmacodynamie Ther. 292, 45– 57. 3395174
  30. Press W. H. Teukolsky S. A. Vetterling W. T. Flannery B. P. (1989). Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing. Vol. 31 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1137/1031025 · DOI
  31. Russ D. Kishony R. (2018). Additivity of inhibitory effects in multidrug combinations. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 1339– 1345. 10.1038/s41564-018-0252-1 30323252 PMC6295580 · DOI
  32. Sinzger M. Vanhoefer J. Loos C. Hasenauer J. (2019). Comparison of null models for combination drug therapy reveals Hand model as biochemically most plausible. Sci. Rep. 9, 3002. 10.1038/s41598-019-38907-x 30816136 PMC6395630 · DOI
  33. Tosi D. Pérez-Gracia E. Atis S. Vié N. Combès E. Gabanou M. (2018). Rational development of synergistic combinations of chemotherapy and molecular targeted agents for colorectal cancer treatment. BMC Cancer 18, 1– 11. 10.1186/s12885-018-4712-z 30103709 PMC6090616 · DOI
  34. Zhang L. Yan K. Zhang Y. Huang R. Bian J. Zheng C. (2007). High-throughput synergy screening identifies microbial metabolites as combination agents for the treatment of fungal infections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 4606– 4611. 10.1073/pnas.0609370104 17360571 PMC1838648 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Zimmer A. Katzir I. Dekel E. Mayo A. E. Alon U. (2016). Prediction of multidimensional drug dose responses based on measurements of drug pairs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 10442– 10447. 10.1073/pnas.1606301113 27562164 PMC5027409 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lederer, S., Dijkstra, T. M. H., & Heskes, T.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Lederer, Simone
Venue
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Published
2019-11-26
Volume
10
Pages
1384-1384
ISSN
1663-9812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991423617
Cited by
74
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Pharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (644727, ICT-644727)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › thermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Keywords
synergistic effect, dose-response modeling, Loewe additivity, Bliss independence, lack of fit, antagonistic effect, high-throughput screening

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