Author:
Yi Misung,Zhan Tingting,Peck Amy R.,Hooke Jeffrey A.,Kovatich Albert J.,Shriver Craig D.,Hu Hai,Sun Yunguang,Rui Hallgeir,Chervoneva Inna
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Protein biomarkers of cancer progression and response to therapy are increasingly important for improving personalized medicine. Advanced quantitative pathology platforms enable measurement of protein expression in tissues at the single-cell level. However, this rich quantitative cell-by-cell biomarker information is most often not exploited. Instead, it is reduced to a single mean across the cells of interest or converted into a simple proportion of binary biomarker-positive or -negative cells.
Results
We investigated the utility of retaining all quantitative information at the single-cell level by considering the values of the quantile function (inverse of the cumulative distribution function) estimated from a sample of cell signal intensity levels in a tumor tissue. An algorithm was developed for selecting optimal cutoffs for dichotomizing cell signal intensity distribution quantiles as predictors of continuous, categorical or survival outcomes. The proposed algorithm was used to select optimal quantile biomarkers of breast cancer progression based on cancer cells’ cell signal intensity levels of nuclear protein Ki-67, Proliferating cell nuclear antigen, Programmed cell death 1 ligand 2, and Progesterone receptor. The performance of the resulting optimal quantile biomarkers was validated and compared to the standard cancer compartment mean signal intensity markers using an independent external validation cohort. For Ki-67, the optimal quantile biomarker was also compared to established biomarkers based on percentages of Ki67-positive cells. For proteins significantly associated with PFS in the external validation cohort, the optimal quantile biomarkers yielded either larger or similar effect size (hazard ratio for progression-free survival) as compared to cancer compartment mean signal intensity biomarkers.
Conclusion
The optimal quantile protein biomarkers yield generally improved prognostic value as compared to the standard protein expression markers. The proposed methodology has a broad application to single-cell data from genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, or metabolomics studies at the single cell level.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Applied Mathematics,Computer Science Applications,Molecular Biology,Biochemistry,Structural Biology
Reference31 articles.
1. Henry NL, Hayes DF. Cancer biomarkers. Mol Oncol. 2012;6(2):140–6.
2. Słodkowska J, García-Rojo M. Digital pathology in personalized cancer therapy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;179:143–54.
3. Rojo MG. State of the art and trends for digital pathology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;179:15–28.
4. Stack EC, Wang C, Roman KA, Hoyt CC. Multiplexed immunohistochemistry, imaging, and quantitation: a review, with an assessment of tyramide signal amplification, multispectral imaging and multiplex analysis. Methods. 2014;70(1):46–58.
5. Carvajal-Hausdorf DE, Schalper KA, Neumeister VM, Rimm DL. Quantitative measurement of cancer tissue biomarkers in the lab and in the clinic. Lab Invest. 2015;95(4):385–96.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Qindex.data: Data for Package 'Qindex';CRAN: Contributed Packages;2024-04-05