Big data in pharmacogenomics: current applications, perspectives and pitfalls

References

• 1. Nebert DW, Zhang G, Vesell ES. From Human genetics and genomics to pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: past lessons, future directions. Drug Metab. Rev. 40(2), 187–224 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Caudle K, Klein T, Hoffman J et al. Incorporation of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice: the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline Development Process. Curr. Drug Metab. 15(2), 209–217 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Xia X. Bioinformatics and drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 5(6), 648–653 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 4. Ji Y, Si Y, McMillin GA, Lyon E. Clinical pharmacogenomics testing in the era of next generation sequencing: challenges and opportunities for precision medicine. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 18(5), 441–421 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 5. Kurdyukov S, Bullock M. DNA methylation analysis: choosing the right method. Biology (Basel) 5(1), pii:E3(2016).
  Google Scholar
• 6. Romanov V, Davidoff SN, Miles AR, Grainger DW, Gale BK, Brooks BD. A critical comparison of protein microarray fabrication technologies. R. Soc. Chem. 139(6), 1303–1326 (2014).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Petrov A, Shams S. Microarray image processing and quality control. J. VLSI Signal Process. 38, 211–226 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 8. Hemingway H, Asselbergs FW, Danesh J et al. Big data from electronic health records for early and late translational cardiovascular research: challenges and potential. Eur. Heart J. 39(16), 1481–1495 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 9. Caudle KE, Dunnenberger HM, Freimuth RR et al. Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Genet. Med. 19(2), 215–223 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR. Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17(6), 333–351 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Caboche S, Audebert C, Lemoine Y, Hot D. Comparison of mapping algorithms used in high-throughput sequencing: application to Ion Torrent data. BMC Genomics 15(1), 1–16 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Numanagic I, Malikic S, Pratt VM, Skaar TC, Flockhart DA, Sahinalp SC. Cypiripi: exact genotyping of CYP2D6 using high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31(12), i27–i34 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Meynert AM, Bicknell LS, Hurles ME, Jackson AP, Taylor MS. Quantifying single nucleotide variant detection sensitivity in exome sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics 14(1), (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Mahamdallie S, Ruark E, Yost S et al. The Quality Sequencing Minimum (QSM): providing comprehensive, consistent, transparent next generation sequencing data quality assurance. Wellcome Open Res. 3, 37 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15. Jennings LJ, Arcila ME, Corless C et al. Guidelines for validation of next-generation sequencing–based oncology panels: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagnostics 19(3), 341–365 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16. Clark MJ, Chen R, Lam HYK et al. Performance comparison of exome DNA sequencing technologies. Nat. Biotechnol. 29(10), 72–108 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 17. Zhou Y, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Lauschke V. Worldwide distribution of cytochrome P450 alleles: a meta-analysis of population-scale sequencing projects. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 102(4), (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 18. Niinuma Y, Saito T, Takahashi M et al. Functional characterization of 32 CYP2C9 allelic variants. Pharmacogenomics J. 14(2), 107–114 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19. Dong Z, Jiang L, Yang C et al. A robust approach for blind detection of balanced chromosomal rearrangements with whole-genome low-coverage sequencing. Hum. Mutat. 35(5), 625–636 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Suzuki T, Tsurusaki Y, Nakashima M et al. Precise detection of chromosomal translocation or inversion breakpoints by whole-genome sequencing. J. Hum. Genet. 59(12), 649–654 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Derouault P, Parfait B, Moulinas R et al. “COV’COP” allows to detect CNVs responsible for inherited diseases among amplicons sequencing data. Bioinformatics 33(10), 1586–1588 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-barclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Speed TP. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics May, 249–264 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Zhang Y, Liu T, Meyer CA et al. Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol. 9(9), R137 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 24. Whirl-Carrillo M, McDonogh E, Herbet J et al. Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personlized medicine. Clin. Pharmacol. Therpeutics 92(4), 414–417 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Rees MG, Seashore-ludlow B, Cheah JH et al. Correlating chemical sensitivity and basal gene expression reveals mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12(2), 109–116 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Seashore-ludlow B, Rees MG, Cheah JH et al. Harnessing connectivity in a large-scale small-molecule sensitivity database. Cancer Discov. 5(11), 1210–1223 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Basu A, Bodycombe NE, Cheah JH et al. An interactive resource to identify cancer genetic and lineage dependencies targeted by small molecules. Cell 154(5), 1151–1161 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Kent WJ, Sugnet CW, Furey TS et al. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 12(6), 996–1006 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Zerbino DR, Achuthan P, Akanni W et al. Ensembl 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 46(D1), D754–D761 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Ogata H, Goto S, Sato K, Fujibuchi W, Bono H, Kanehisa M. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 27(1), 29–34 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 45(D1), D353–D361 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Stark C, Breitkreutz B, Reguly T, Boucher L, Breitkreutz A, Tyers M. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 535–539 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Kim RS, Goossens N, Hoshida Y. Use of big data in drug development for precision medicine. Expert Rev. Precis. Med. Drug Dev. 1(3), 245–253 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34. Tian Z, Hwang T, Kuang R. A hypergraph-based learning algorithm for classifying gene expression and arrayCGH data with prior knowledge. Bioinformatics 25(21), 2831–2838 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Dhruba SR, Rahman R, Matlock K, Ghosh S, Pal R. Application of transfer learning for cancer drug sensitivity prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 19(Suppl.17), 497 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536(7616), 285–291 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Braschi B, Denny P, Gray K et al. Genenames.org: the HGNC and VGNC resources in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 786–792 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 38. Database of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (dbSNP). Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/.
  Google Scholar
• 39. Kalman LV, Black JL, Clinic M, Sw S, Bell GC. Pharmacogenetic Allele Nomenclature: International Workgroup recommendations for test result reporting.99(2), 172–185 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 40. Browning SR, Thompson EA. Detecting rare variant associations by identity-by-descent mapping in case–control studies. Genetics. 190(April), 1521–1531 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Xu H, Guan Y. Detecting local haplotype sharing and haplotype association. Genetics 197(July), 823–838 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42. Giacomini KM, Yee SW, Mushiroda T, Weinshilboum RM, Ratain MJ, Kubo M. Genome-wide association studies of drug response and toxicity: an opportunity for genome medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 16(1), 1–8 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Hodge VJ, Austin J. A survey of outlier detection methodologies. Artif. Intell. Rev. 22, 85–126 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 44. Markou M, Singh S. Novelty detection: a review – part 1: statistical approaches. Signal Processing 83, 2481–2497 (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 45. Hanson C, Cairns J, Wang L, Sinha S. Principled multi-omic analysis reveals gene regulatory mechanisms of phenotype variation. Genome Res. 28(8), 1207–1216 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Richardson S, Tseng GC, Sun W. Statistical methods in integrative genomics. Annu. Rev. Stat. Its Appl. 3(1), 181–209 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 47. Ma’ayan A, Rouillard AD, Clark NR, Wang Z, Duan Q, Kou Y. Lean big data integration in systems biology and systems pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 35(9), 450–460 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 48. Chen J, Zhang S. Integrative analysis for identifying joint modular patterns of gene-expression and drug-response data. Bioinformatics. 32, 1724–1732 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Giuliani A. The application of principal component analysis to drug discovery and biomedical data. Drug Discov. Today 22(7), 1069–1076 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Bielinski S, Olson J, Pathak J et al. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right time-using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clin Proc. 89(1), 25–33 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 51. Wu Z, Li W, Liu G, Tang Y. Network-based methods for prediction of drug-target interactions. 9, 1–14 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 52. Iniesta R, Hodgson K, Stahl D et al. Antidepressant drug-specific prediction of depression treatment outcomes from genetic and clinical variables. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 5530 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53. Lutz W, Schwartz B, Hofmann SG, Fisher AJ, Husen K, Rubel JA. Using network analysis for the prediction of treatment dropout in patients with mood and anxiety disorders: a methodological proof- of-concept study. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 7819 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54. Regan-Fendt KE, Xu J, Divincenzo M et al. Synergy from gene expression and network mining (SynGeNet) method predicts synergistic drug combinations for diverse melanoma genomic subtypes. NPJ Syst. Biol. Appl. 5(6), doi:10.1038/s41540-019-0085-4 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 55. Huang H-H, Dai J-G, Liang Y. Clinical drug response prediction by using a Lq penalized network-constrained logistic regression method. Cell Physiol Biochem. 51(5), 2073–2084 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Li Q, Shi R, Id FL. Drug sensitivity prediction with high- dimensional mixture regression. PLoS One 14(2), e0212108 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Ali M, Aittokallio T. Machine learning and feature selection for drug response prediction in precision oncology applications. Biophys. Rev. 39, 31–39 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 58. Yang M, Simm J, Lam CC et al. Linking drug target and pathway activation for effective therapy using multi-task learning. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–10 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59. Nie L, Lee KY, Verdun N, De Claro RA, Sridhara R. Dose finding in late-phase drug development. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 51(6), 738–743 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 60. Gamazon ER, Trendowski MR, Wen Y et al. Gene and MicroRNA perturbations of cellular response to pemetrexed implicate biological networks and enable imputation of response in lung adenocarcinoma. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–13 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar