Back

Pairwise tests for conditional selection use evolutionary logic to predict intrinsic drug resistance in ALK alterations

Inam, H.; Pritchard, J. R.

2019-07-09 bioengineering
10.1101/696294 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Genomic data can facilitate personalized treatment decisions by enabling therapeutic hypotheses in individual patients. Conditional selection, which includes mutual exclusivity, is a signal that has been empirically useful for identifying mutations that may be sensitive to single agent targeted therapies. However, a low mutation frequency can underpower this signal for rare variants and prevent robust conclusions from genomic data. We develop a resampling based method for the direct pairwise comparison of conditional selection between sets of gene pairs. This effectively creates positive control guideposts of mutual exclusivity in known driver genes that normalizes differences in mutation abundance. We applied this method to a transcript variant of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) in melanoma, termed ALKATI, which has been the subject of a recent controversy in the literature. We reproduced some of the original cell transformation experiments, performed rescue experiments, and analyzed drug response data to revisit the original ALKATI findings. We found that ALKATI is not as mutually exclusive with BRAF or NRAS as BRAF and NRAS genes are with each other. We performed in vitro transformation assays and rescue assays that suggested that alternative transcript initiation in ALK is not likely to be sufficient for cellular transformation or growth and it does not predict single agent therapeutic dependency. Our work strongly disfavors the role of ALKATI as a targetable oncogenic driver that might be sensitive to single agent ALK treatment. The progress of other experimental agents in late-stage melanoma and our experimental and computational re-analysis led us to conclude that further single agent testing of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALKATI should be limited to cases where no other treatment hypotheses can be identified.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.1%
2
NAR Cancer
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
3
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.3%
5
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.7%
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 24%
5.1%
8
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
9
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 6%
4.4%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.3%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.0%
12
Science Signaling
65 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
13
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
14
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.3%
17
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
PLOS Pathogens
820 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
21
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
Oncogene
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
24
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
25
Molecular Cancer Research
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%