Patent Grant
7465542
Many anti-proliferative agents used to treat cancer; infections, etc. also have the potential to damage normal cells. Generally dosage levels are selected to preferentially affect the target, e.g. tumor cells, but some patients are particularly susceptible to toxicity, and can suffer undesirable side effects from such treatment.
For example, ionizing radiation (IR) is used to treat about 60% of cancer patients, by depositing energy that injures or destroys cells in the area being treated. Radiation injury to cells is nonspecific, with complex effects on DNA. The efficacy of therapy depends on cellular injury to cancer cells being greater than to normal cells. Radiotherapy may be used to treat every type of cancer. Some types of radiation therapy involve photons, such as X-rays or gamma rays. Another technique for delivering radiation to cancer cells is internal radiotherapy, which places radioactive implants directly in a tumor or body cavity so that the radiation dose is concentrated in a small area.
Radiotherapy may be used in combination with additional agents. Radiosensitizers make the tumor cells more likely to be damaged, and radioprotectors protect normal tissues from the effects of radiation. Hyperthermia is also being studied for its effectiveness in sensitizing tissue to radiation.
Although most patients tolerate treatment, up to 10% of patients suffer from toxicity that can lead to significant morbidity. Non-genetic risk factors for radiation toxicity include concurrent treatment with radiosensitizing drugs and anatomical variations such as congenital malformations, post-surgical adhesions, fat content, and tissue oxygenation. Toxicity is also associated with diabetes and autoimmune diseases such as lupus. However, these causes cannot account for the vast majority of adverse radiation reactions.
In a small fraction of cases, radiation sensitivity can be attributed to known genetic mutations. Diseases of IR sensitivity include ataxia telangiectasia (AT), AT-like disorder, Nijmegan Breakage Syndrome, and radiosensitivity with severe combined immunodeficiency, but these autosomal recessive diseases are rare. Heterozygosity for mutations in ATM, the gene mutated in AT, may occur in 1% of individuals and has been reported to confer moderate sensitivity to IR in tissue culture. However, relatively few adverse radiation reactions are associated with ATM mutations.
Several attempts have been made to correlate radiation toxicity with cellular responses to IR ex vivo. Survival of cultured skin fibroblasts after IR correlated with acute radiation toxicity in some studies but not others (see Johansen et al. (1996) Radiother Oncol 40:101-9; Russell et al. (1998) Int J Radiat Biol 73:661-70; Peacock et al. (2000) Radiother Oncol 55:173-8. In another study, lymphocytes from cancer patients with radiation toxicity showed less IR-induced apoptosis than lymphocytes from control patients (Crompton et al. (1999) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:707-714). Peripheral blood lymphocytes from breast cancer patients with severe skin reactions showed an abnormal increase in chromosome aberrations when the cells were exposed to IR (Barber et al. (2000) Radiother Oncol 55:179-86). In these latter two studies, correlations between radiation toxicity and the ex vivo assay suggested the presence of an underlying genetic defect in some radiation sensitive patients. However, there was a large overlap between radiation sensitive patients and controls in these assays, limiting their clinical usefulness. Thus, assays to predict radiation toxicity have yielded mixed results, and the vast majority of adverse reactions remain unexplained (Brock et al. (2000) Radiother Oncol 55:93-94).
To date, there is no effective way known to the inventors to predict whether or not a patient will be susceptible to toxicity following radiation therapy. A diagnostic protocol which could provide information as to whether a patient is or is not susceptible to toxicity would be desirable for a number of reasons, including avoidance of delays in alternative treatments, elimination of exposure to adverse effects and reduction of unnecessary expense. As such, there is interest in the development of a protocol that can accurately predict whether or not a patient is susceptible to toxicity from radiation therapy.
Relevant Literature
A method of analyzing the significance of changes observed in expression patterns in microarrays may be found in International Application WO 01/84139; and Tusher et al. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:5116-5121. A method for analysis of shrunken centroids is described by Tibshirani et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:6567-6572.
Methods are provided for predicting whether an individual subjected to anti-proliferative therapy, particularly therapy that results in DNA damage, e.g. radiation therapy will be susceptible to toxicity resulting from the therapy. The ability to predict susceptibility to toxicity allows optimization of treatment, and determination of whether on whether to proceed with a specific therapy, and how to optimize dose, choice of treatment, and the like. In another embodiment, methods are provided for determining whether an individual is susceptible to toxicity.
In practicing the methods, an expression profile is obtained from the subject cells in the absence and presence of the therapy, e.g. UV radiation, ionizing radiation, presence of a chemotherapeutic agent, etc. The expression profile is used to determine the difference between the exposed and non-exposed cells, and is compared to a reference profile. Reagents and kits thereof that find use in practicing the subject methods are provided.
In another embodiment of the invention, methods are provided for statistical analysis of data, such as expression profiles in response to a stimulus, e.g. treatment with drug, exposure to radiation, exposure to specific antigenic stimulus, and the like; post-translational responses, basal expression levels; etc. to determine whether a pattern of expression or response will be predictive of a phenotype of interest. The statistical analyses usually utilize a heterogeneity-associated transformation, and nearest shrunken centroids analysis to provide a set of predictive genes.
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
The subject invention provides a method of determining whether a patient is susceptible to toxicity resulting from anti-proliferative therapy, where the method includes (a) obtaining a transcriptional response profile for a sample from said subject in the absence or presence of said therapy; and (b) comparing said obtained profile to a reference expression profile to determine whether said subject is susceptible to said toxicity. In certain embodiments, the expression profile is for at least about 10, usually at least about 25, and may be at least 50, at least about 100, or more of said genes listed in Table 3. In certain embodiments, the expression profile is determined using a microarray. In other embodiments the expression profile is determined by quantitative PCR or other quantitative methods for measuring mRNA.
The subject invention also provides a reference expression profile for a response phenotype that is one of: (a) susceptible to toxicity; or (b) non-susceptible to toxicity; wherein said expression profile is recorded on a computer readable medium.
For quantitative PCR analysis, the subject invention provides a collection of gene specific primers, said collection comprising: gene specific primers specific for at least about 10, usually at least about 20 of the genes of Table 3, where in certain embodiments said collection comprises at least 50 gene specific primers, at least 100, or more. The subject invention also provides an array of probe nucleic acids immobilized on a solid support, said array comprising: a plurality of probe nucleic acid compositions, wherein each probe nucleic acid composition is specific for a gene whose expression profile is indicative of toxicity susceptibility phenotype, wherein at least 10 of said probe nucleic acid compositions correspond to genes listed in Table 3, where in certain embodiments said array further comprises at least one control nucleic acid composition.
The subject invention also provides a kit for use in determining the susceptibility phenotype of a source of a nucleic acid sample, said kit comprising: at least one of: (a) an array as described above; or (b) a collection of gene specific primers as described above. The kit may further comprise a software package for data analysis of expression profiles.
Before the subject invention is described further, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the particular embodiments of the invention described below, as variations of the particular embodiments may be made and still fall within the scope of the appended claims. It is also to be understood that the terminology employed is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments, and is not intended to be limiting. Instead, the scope of the present invention will be established by the appended claims. In this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
Where a range of values is provided, it is understood that each intervening value, to the tenth of the unit of the lower limit unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, between the upper and lower limit of that range, and any other stated or intervening value in that stated range, is encompassed within the invention. The upper and lower limits of these smaller ranges may independently be included in the smaller ranges, and are also encompassed within the invention, subject to any specifically excluded limit in the stated range. Where the stated range includes one or both of the limits, ranges excluding either or both of those included limits are also included in the invention.
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. Although any methods, devices and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the invention, the preferred methods, devices and materials are now described.
All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by reference for the purpose of describing and disclosing the subject components of the invention that are described in the publications, which components might be used in connection with the presently described invention.
As summarized above, the subject invention is directed to methods of determining whether a subject is susceptible to unacceptable toxicity in response to therapeutic procedures, as well as reagents and kits for use in practicing the subject methods. The methods may also determine whether a particular cancer cell is susceptible to killing by a therapy of interest, where the differential between the target cell, e.g. a cancer cell, and the normal cell, is useful in making a determination of suitable treatment.
Methods are also provided for optimizing therapy, by determining the susceptibility of a patient to toxicity induced by one or more therapies, and based on that information, selecting the appropriate therapy, dose, treatment modality, e.g. angle and screening of radiation, etc. which optimizes the differential between delivery of an anti-proliferative treatment to the undesirable target cells, while minimizing undesirable toxicity. In one embodiment of the invention, the patient sample is exposed to two or more candidate therapies or combinations of therapies, e.g. exposure to various chemotherapeutic agents. Optionally, both a normal cell sample and a tumor cell sample are tested, in order to determine the differential effect of the treatment on normal and tumor cells. The treatment is optimized by selection for a treatment that avoids treatment that has a high probability of causing undesirable toxicity, while providing for effective anti-proliferative activity.
In further describing the invention, the subject methods are described first, followed by a review of the reagents and kits for use in practicing the subject methods.
Anti-proliferative therapy is used therapeutically to eliminate tumor cells and other undesirable cells in a host, and includes the use of therapies such as delivery of ionizing radiation, and administration of chemotherapeutic agents. Chemotherapeutic agents of particular interest induce DNA damage, and more particularly agents of interest induce double stranded breaks in DNA, for example the topoisomerase inhibitors anthracyclines, including the compounds daunorubicin, adriamycin (doxorubicin), epirubicin, idarubicin, anamycin, MEN 10755, and the like. Other topoisomerase inhibitors include the podophyllotoxin analogues etoposide and teniposide, and the anthracenediones, mitoxantrone and amsacrine.
In one aspect of the invention, the anti-proliferative agent interferes with microtubule assembly, e.g. the family of vinca alkaloids. Examples of vinca alkaloids include vinblastine, vincristine; vinorelbine (NAVELBINE); vindesine; vindoline; vincamine; etc.
In another embodiment of the invention, the anti-proliferative agent is a DNA-damaging agent, such as nucleotide analogs, alkylating agents, etc. Alkylating agents include nitrogen mustards, e.g. mechlorethamine, cyclophosphamide, melphalan (L-sarcolysin), etc.; and nitrosoureas, e.g. carmustine (BCNU), lomustine (CCNU), semustine (methyl-CCNU), streptozocin, chlorozotocin, etc.
Nucleotide analogs include pyrimidines, e.g. cytarabine (CYTOSAR-U), cytosine arabinoside, fluorouracil (5-FU), floxuridine (FUdR), etc.; purines, e.g. thioguanine (6-thioguanine), mercaptopurine (6-MP), pentostatin, fluorouracil (5-FU) etc.; and folic acid analogs, e.g. methotrexate, 10-propargyl-5,8-dideazafolate (PDDF, CB3717), 5,8-dideazatetrahydrofolic acid (DDATHF), leucovorin, etc.
Other chemotherapeutic agents of interest include metal complexes, e.g. cisplatin (cis-DDP), carboplatin, oxaliplatin, etc.; ureas, e.g. hydroxyurea; and hydrazines, e.g. N-methylhydrazine.
The use of anti-proliferative agents and treatments in therapy, e.g. in cancer therapy, depends on a differential between the effect on undesirable cancer cells and normal cells. Certain patients are less tolerant of treatment, and suffer unacceptable toxicity in normal tissues. It will be understood by those of skill in the art that some level of damage may occur in all subjects. It will also be understood that the toxic effects may be found on various tissues, i.e. skin, central nervous system, gut, etc. depending on the specific angle and dose of therapeutic radiation, compound that is delivered, etc. Criteria for grading toxic effects are known in the art, and are reproduced herein for convenience. The methods of the present invention are useful in differentiating between patients susceptible to unacceptable toxicity, i.e. having a grade of 2, 3, 4 or 5 in any tissue; and patients susceptible to acceptable toxicity of only grade 0 or 1.
The following tables provide conventional criteria for grading radiation toxicity. Other toxicities associated with other agents are known in the relevant clinical arts, and will be readily obtained by one of skill in the art. Toxicity may occur within less than about 90 days following exposure, herein termed early toxicity, or may occur after greater than about 90 days, herein termed late toxicity.
The subject invention provides methods of predicting whether a patient or subject exposed to anti-proliferative therapy, particularly therapy resulting in double stranded DNA damage, e.g. ionizing radiation, including X-rays, gamma radiation, etc.; treatment with topoisomerase inhibitors as described above, and the like; will be susceptible to toxicity. In practicing the subject methods, a subject or patient sample, e.g., cells or collections thereof, e.g., tissues, is assayed to determine whether the host from which the assayed sample was obtained is susceptible to toxicity. Cells of interest particularly include dividing cells, e.g. leukocytes, fibroblasts, epithelial cells, etc. Cell samples are collected by any convenient method, as known in the art. Additionally, tumor cells may be collected and tested to determine the relative effectiveness of a therapy in causing differential death between normal and diseased cells.
To test for radiation-induced toxicity, the cell sample is exposed to radiation, including at least ionizing radiation, and preferably one cell sample is exposed to ionizing radiation and a second cell sample is exposed to ultraviolet radiation. A suitable dose of ionizing radiation may range from at least about 2 Gy to not more than about 10 Gy, usually about 5 Gy. The sample may be collected from at least about 2 and not more than about 24 hours following ionizing radiation, usually around about 4 hours. A suitable dose of ultraviolet radiation may range from at least about 5 J/m2 to not more than about 50 J/m2, usually about 10 J/m2. The sample may be collected from at least about 4 and not more than about 72 hours following ultraviolet radiation, usually around about 4 hours. The radiation exposed cell sample is assayed to obtain an expression profile for a set of genes, typically including at least about 10 top ranked genes set forth in Table 3, usually including at least about 25 top ranked genes, and may include at least about 50 top ranked genes; 100 top-ranked genes, or more, up to the complete set of predictive genes.
To test for toxicity resulting from exposure to chemotherapeutic agents, the cell sample may be exposed to radiation, as described above, or may be exposed to the therapeutic agent of interest, or to an agent having a similar profile of activity. Typically a cell sample will be compared to a control sample that has not been exposed to the therapy. The dose and time period for obtaining samples following exposure will vary with the specific agent that is selected. As is known in the art, a titration of dose may be used to determine the appropriate range for testing. Generally, samples from the cells will be obtained after at least about 4 hours and not more than about 5 days following exposure.
The term expression profile is used broadly to include a genomic expression profile, e.g., an expression profile of mRNAs, or a proteomic expression profile, e.g., an expression profile of one or more different proteins. Profiles may be generated by any convenient means for determining differential gene expression between two samples, e.g. quantitative hybridization of mRNA, labeled mRNA, amplified mRNA, cRNA, etc., quantitative PCR, ELISA for protein quantitation, and the like.
Genes/proteins of interest are genes/proteins that are found to be predictive of susceptibility to toxicity include, but are not limited to, the genes/proteins provided in Table 3, below
In certain embodiments, any one or more of the genes/proteins in the prepared expression profile are from Table 3, above, where the expression profile may include expression data for 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100 or more of, including all of, the genes/proteins listed in Table 3, above.
In certain embodiments, the expression profile obtained is a genomic or nucleic acid expression profile, where the amount or level of one or more nucleic acids in the sample is determined. In these embodiments, the sample that is assayed to generate the expression profile employed in the diagnostic methods is one that is a nucleic acid sample. The nucleic acid sample includes a plurality or population of distinct nucleic acids that includes the expression information of the phenotype determinative genes of interest of the cell or tissue being diagnosed. The nucleic acid may include RNA or DNA nucleic acids, e.g., mRNA, cRNA, cDNA etc., so long as the sample retains the expression information of the host cell or tissue from which it is obtained.
The sample may be prepared in a number of different ways, as is known in the art, e.g., by mRNA isolation from a cell, where the isolated mRNA is used as is, amplified, employed to prepare cDNA, cRNA, etc., as is known in the differential expression art. The sample is typically prepared from a cell or tissue harvested from a subject to be diagnosed, e.g., via blood drawing, biopsy of tissue, using standard protocols, where cell types or tissues from which such nucleic acids may be generated include any tissue in which the expression pattern of the to be determined phenotype exists. Cells may be cultured prior to analysis.
The expression profile may be generated from the initial nucleic acid sample using any convenient protocol. While a variety of different manners of generating expression profiles are known, such as those employed in the field of differential gene expression analysis, one representative and convenient type of protocol for generating expression profiles is array based gene expression profile generation protocols. Such applications are hybridization assays in which a nucleic acid that displays “probe” nucleic acids for each of the genes to be assayed/profiled in the profile to be generated is employed. In these assays, a sample of target nucleic acids is first prepared from the initial nucleic acid sample being assayed, where preparation may include labeling of the target nucleic acids with a label, e.g., a member of signal producing system. Following target nucleic acid sample preparation, the sample is contacted with the array under hybridization conditions, whereby complexes are formed between target nucleic acids that are complementary to probe sequences attached to the array surface. The presence of hybridized complexes is then detected, either qualitatively or quantitatively.
Specific hybridization technology which may be practiced to generate the expression profiles employed in the subject methods includes the technology described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,143,854; 5,288,644; 5,324,633; 5,432,049; 5,470,710; 5,492,806; 5,503,980; 5,510,270; 5,525,464; 5,547,839; 5,580,732; 5,661,028; 5,800,992; the disclosures of which are herein incorporated by reference; as well as WO 95/21265; WO 96/31622; WO 97/10365; WO 97/27317; EP 373 203; and EP 785 280. In these methods, an array of “probe” nucleic acids that includes a probe for each of the phenotype determinative genes whose expression is being assayed is contacted with target nucleic acids as described above. Contact is carried out under hybridization conditions, e.g., stringent hybridization conditions as described above, and unbound nucleic acid is then removed. The resultant pattern of hybridized nucleic acid provides information regarding expression for each of the genes that have been probed, where the expression information is in terms of whether or not the gene is expressed and, typically, at what level, where the expression data, i.e., expression profile, may be both qualitative and quantitative.
Alternatively, non-array based methods for quantitating the levels of one or more nucleic acids in a sample may be employed, including quantitative PCR, and the like.
Where the expression profile is a protein expression profile, any convenient protein quantitation protocol may be employed, where the levels of one or more proteins in the assayed sample are determined. Representative methods include, but are not limited to; proteomic arrays, flow cytometry, standard immunoassays, etc.
Following obtainment of the expression profile from the sample being assayed, the expression profile is compared with a reference or control profile to make a diagnosis regarding the radiation toxicity susceptibility phenotype of the cell or tissue from which the sample was obtained/derived. Typically a comparison is made with a set of cells from the same source, which has not been exposed to radiation. Additionally, a reference or control profile may be a profile that is obtained from a cell/tissue known to have the susceptible phenotype, and therefore may be a positive reference or control profile. In addition, a reference/control profile may be from a cell/tissue known to not have the susceptibility phenotype, and therefore be a negative reference/control profile.
In certain embodiments, the obtained expression profile is compared to a single reference/control profile to obtain information regarding the phenotype of the cell/tissue being assayed. In yet other embodiments, the obtained expression profile is compared to two or more different reference/control profiles to obtain more in depth information regarding the phenotype of the assayed cell/tissue. For example, the obtained expression profile may be compared to a positive and negative reference profile to obtain confirmed information regarding whether the cell/tissue has the phenotype of interest.
The difference values, i.e. the difference in expression in the presence and absence of radiation may be performed using any convenient methodology, where a variety of methodologies are known to those of skill in the array art, e.g., by comparing digital images of the expression profiles, by comparing databases of expression data, etc. Patents describing ways of comparing expression profiles include, but are not limited to, U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,308,170 and 6,228,575, the disclosures of which are herein incorporated by reference. Methods of comparing expression profiles are also described above.
A statistical analysis step is then performed to obtain the weighted contribution of the set of predictive genes. Nearest shrunken centroids analysis, is applied as described in Tibshirani et al. (2002) P.N.A.S. 99:6567-6572 to compute the centroid for each class, then compute the average squared distance between a given expression profile and each centroid, normalized by the within-class standard deviation.
To perform a shrunken centroids analysis, let xik be the expression for genes i=1, 2, . . . p and samples j=1, 2, . . . n. Classes are 1, 2, . . . K, and Ck is indices of the nk samples in class k. The ith component of the centroid for class k is
where si is the pooled within-class standard deviation for gene i:
and mk=√{square root over (1/nk+1/n)} makes mk·si equal to the estimated standard error of the numerator in dik. In the denominator, the value so is a positive constant (with the same value for all genes), included to guard against the possibility of large dik values arising by chance from genes with low expression levels. so is set to be equal to the median value of the si over the set of genes.
Thus dik is a t statistic for gene i, comparing class k to the overall centroid. Eq. 1 can be rewritten as
This method shrinks each dik toward zero, giving d′ik and yielding shrunken centroids or prototypes
The shrinkage is called soft thresholding: each dik is reduced by an amount Δ in absolute value and is set to zero if its absolute value is less than zero. Algebraically, soft thresholding is defined by
d′ik=sign)(dik)(|dik|−Δ)+ [5]
where + means positive part (t+=t if t>0 and zero otherwise). Because many of the
Depending on the type and nature of the reference/control profile(s) to which the obtained expression profile is compared, the above comparison step yields information as to whether a patient is susceptible to toxicity after exposure to antiproliferative therapy. As such, the above comparison step can yield a positive/negative determination of a susceptible phenotype of an assayed cell/tissue.
The prediction of susceptibility is probabilistically defined, where the cut-off for predicted susceptibility may be empirically derived, for example as shown in
Also provided are databases of expression profiles of phenotype determinative genes. Such databases will typically comprise expression profiles of various cells/tissues having susceptible phenotypes, negative expression profiles, etc., where such profiles are further described below.
The expression profiles and databases thereof may be provided in a variety of media to facilitate their use. “Media” refers to a manufacture that contains the expression profile information of the present invention. The databases of the present invention can be recorded on computer readable media, e.g. any medium that can be read and accessed directly by a computer. Such media include, but are not limited to: magnetic storage media, such as floppy discs, hard disc storage medium, and magnetic tape; optical storage media such as CD-ROM; electrical storage media such as RAM and ROM; and hybrids of these categories such as magnetic/optical storage media. One of skill in the art can readily appreciate how any of the presently known computer readable mediums can be used to create a manufacture comprising a recording of the present database information. “Recorded” refers to a process for storing information on computer readable medium, using any such methods as known in the art. Any convenient data storage structure may be chosen, based on the means used to access the stored information. A variety of data processor programs and formats can be used for storage, e.g. word processing text file, database format, etc.
As used herein, “a computer-based system” refers to the hardware means, software means, and data storage means used to analyze the information of the present invention. The minimum hardware of the computer-based systems of the present invention comprises a central processing unit (CPU), input means, output means, and data storage means. A skilled artisan can readily appreciate that any one of the currently available computer-based system are suitable for use in the present invention. The data storage means may comprise any manufacture comprising a recording of the present information as described above, or a memory access means that can access such a manufacture.
A variety of structural formats for the input and output means can be used to input and output the information in the computer-based systems of the present invention. Such presentation provides a skilled artisan with a ranking of similarities and identifies the degree of similarity contained in the test expression profile.
Also provided are reagents and kits thereof for practicing one or more of the above-described methods. The subject reagents and kits thereof may vary greatly. Reagents of interest include reagents specifically designed for use in production of the above described expression profiles of phenotype determinative genes.
One type of such reagent is an array of probe nucleic acids in which the phenotype determinative genes of interest are represented. A variety of different array formats are known in the art, with a wide variety of different probe structures, substrate compositions and attachment technologies. Representative array structures of interest include those described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,143,854; 5,288,644; 5,324,633; 5,432,049; 5,470,710; 5,492,806; 5,503,980; 5,510,270; 5,525,464; 5,547,839; 5,580,732; 5,661,028; 5,800,992; the disclosures of which are herein incorporated by reference; as well as WO 95/21265; WO 96/31622; WO 97/10365; WO 97/27317; EP 373 203; and EP 785 280. In certain embodiments, the number of genes that are from Table 3 that is represented on the array is at least 10, usually at least 25, and may be at least 50, 100, up to including all of the genes listed in Table 3, preferably utilizing the top ranked set of genes. The subject arrays may include only those genes that are listed in Table 3, or they may include additional genes that are not listed in Table 3. Where the subject arrays include probes for such additional genes, in certain embodiments the number % of additional genes that are represented does not exceed about 50%, usually does not exceed about 25%. In many embodiments where additional “non-Table 3” genes are included, a great majority of genes in the collection are phenotype determinative genes, where by great majority is meant at least about 75%, usually at least about 80% and sometimes at least about 85, 90, 95% or higher, including embodiments where 100% of the genes in the collection are predictive genes.
Another type of reagent that is specifically tailored for generating expression profiles of phenotype determinative genes is a collection of gene specific primers that is designed to selectively amplify such genes, for use in quantitative PCR and other quantitation methods. Gene specific primers and methods for using the same are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,076, the disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference. Of particular interest are collections of gene specific primers that have primers for at least 10 of the genes listed in Table 3, above, often a plurality of these genes, e.g., at least 25, and may be 50, 100 or more to include all of the genes listed in Table 3. The subject gene specific primer collections may include only those genes that are listed in Table 3, or they may include primers for additional genes that are not listed in Table 3. Where the subject gene specific primer collections include primers for such additional genes, in certain embodiments the number % of additional genes that are represented does not exceed about 50%, usually does not exceed about 25%. In many embodiments where additional “non-Table 3” genes are included, a great majority of genes in the collection are phenotype determinative genes, where by great majority is meant at least about 75%, usually at least about 80% and sometimes at least about 85, 90, 95% or higher, including embodiments where 100% of the genes in the collection are predictive genes.
The kits of the subject invention may include the above described arrays and/or gene specific primer collections. The kits may further include a software package for statistical analysis of one or more phenotypes, and may include a reference database for calculating the probability of susceptibility. The kit may include reagents employed in the various methods, such as primers for generating target nucleic acids, dNTPs and/or rNTPs, which may be either premixed or separate, one or more uniquely labeled dNTPs and/or rNTPs, such as biotinylated or Cy3 or Cy5 tagged dNTPs, gold or silver particles with different scattering spectra, or other post synthesis labeling reagent, such as chemically active derivatives of fluorescent dyes, enzymes, such as reverse transcriptases, DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases, and the like, various buffer mediums, e.g. hybridization and washing buffers, prefabricated probe arrays, labeled probe purification reagents and components, like spin columns, etc., signal generation and detection reagents, e.g. streptavidin-alkaline phosphatase conjugate, chemifluorescent or chemiluminescent substrate, and the like.
In addition to the above components, the subject kits will further include instructions for practicing the subject methods. These instructions may be present in the subject kits in a variety of forms, one or more of which may be present in the kit. One form in which these instructions may be present is as printed information on a suitable medium or substrate, e.g., a piece or pieces of paper on which the information is printed, in the packaging of the kit, in a package insert, etc. Yet another means would be a computer readable medium, e.g., diskette, CD, etc., on which the information has been recorded. Yet another means that may be present is a website address which may be used via the internet to access the information at a removed site. Any convenient means may be present in the kits.
In another aspect of the invention, methods are provided for identifying genes and proteins that are predictive of a phenotype of interest. Such analytical methods provide a set of molecules whose pattern of expression yields information about a phenotype of interest. The molecules may be transcriptional responses, expression of a protein, post-translational protein modification, e.g. cleavage, phosphorylation and dephosporylation, glycosylation, etc.
The pattern of expression may be basal levels of expression in a target cell type, e.g. expression of a gene in a cancer cell, differential expression of a gene in a normal v. a cancer cell, expression of a gene during a specific developmental stage, basal phosphorylation of a protein in a cell, and the like. The pattern of expression may also be in response to a treatment of interest, e.g. exposure to radiation, exposure to a therapeutic agent, exposure to cytokines, response of cells in a mixed lymphocyte reaction, and the like. The shrunken centroid analysis described above may be used to determine an expression profile for any phenotype of interest.
The phenotype of interest may be susceptibility to toxicity, response to a therapeutic regimen or agent, development of autoimmune disease, development of graft rejection, development of graft v. host disease, distinction of heterogeneity in an early stage of cancer, e.g. prediction of probable course of disease, and the like.
To obtain the set of predictive genes, initially cohorts are gathered for the phenotype of interest, e.g. patients suffering from a disease of interest, responders and non-responders to a treatment of interest, and the like. One or more cohorts are gathered for the phenotype of interest, and one or more for a control, preferably a matched control group, according to methods known in the art.
An expression profile for the trait to be examined is made. Convenient methods for examining large groups of genes include hybridization to microarrays, as discussed above and in the examples. Alternatively, proteomics arrays may be used to determine protein profiles, antibody array can be used to detect the presence of epitopes of interest in a sample, various methods known in the art for quantitative hybridization of a nucleic acid may be used, and the like. As discussed above, the basal expression level may be taken, or a response to a particular stimulus. In many cases it is desirable to determine a difference in expression between a control and a test sample. The expression may be normalized a control, to expression of a housekeeping gene or genes, etc., as known in the art.
Many phenotypes of interest are actually the result of different underlying genotypes, where a heterogeneous response over a patient population can make analysis difficult. To address the problem of heterogeneity, the following heterogeneity-associated transformation (HAT) is performed, using the following equation:
where x(i) is the change in expression for gene i, and
After transforming the data, nearest shrunken centroid analysis is performed, as described above and in Tibshirani et al. (2002), supra. The centroid of gene expression for a class of samples is defined as a multi-component vector, in which each component is the expression of a gene averaged over the samples. Samples are then classified by proximity to the nearest centroid. In order to verify the prediction, it is desirable to test profiles against an independent set of samples, or with cross-validation.
The probability of a specific outcome is then calculated. The cut-off for a particular diagnosis will be determined empirically, based on the specific set of data, and may be modeled to include the weighted probability for rare events.
The above-described analytical methods may be embodied as a program of instructions executable by computer to perform the different aspects of the invention. Any of the techniques described above may be performed by means of software components loaded into a computer or other information appliance or digital device. When so enabled, the computer, appliance or device may then perform the above-described techniques to assist the analysis of sets of values associated with a plurality of genes in the manner described above, or for comparing such associated values. The software component may be loaded from a fixed media or accessed through a communication medium such as the internet or other type of computer network. The above features are embodied in one or more computer programs may be performed by one or more computers running such programs.
The following examples are offered by way of illustration and not by way of limitation.
Toxicity from radiation therapy is a grave problem for cancer patients, and methods are needed for predicting its occurrence. Microarrays were used to analyze abnormal transcriptional responses to DNA damage in cultured lymphocytes. A transformation of the data was devised to account for the possibility that toxicity can arise from defects in different pathways. The risk of toxicity was then computed for each patient using nearest shrunken centroids, a method that identifies predictive genes. Transcriptional responses in 24 genes predicted radiation toxicity in 9 of 14 patients with no false positives among 43 controls. Some patients had defective responses to ionizing radiation, while others had defective responses to both ultraviolet and ionizing radiation. This approach has the potential to predict toxicity from ionizing radiation and other anticancer agents, enabling physicians to design a safe treatment plan for each patient.
Materials and Methods
Patient cell lines. Subjects were enrolled with informed consent between 1997 and 2002 in accordance with Stanford regulations for human subjects research. Radiation toxicity was graded according to the RTOG Acute and Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria. Radiation therapy patients donated peripheral blood samples at least 2 months following completion of treatment and resolution of any toxicity. Lymphoblastoid cell lines were established by immortalization of peripheral blood B-lymphocytes with Epstein-Barr virus from the B95-8 monkey cell line. Cells were grown in RPMI 1640 (Gibco) with 15% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, and 2 mM glutamine and stored in liquid nitrogen.
Treatment of cells with UV and IR. Lymphoblastoid cells were subjected to mock, UV, and IR treatment. For UV treatment, 5×107 cells were suspended in PBS at 6×105 cells/ml to ensure uniform exposure to UV. Cells subjected to mock and IR treatment were also suspended in PBS during this period to ensure similar treatment. For UV treatment, cells were exposed for 15 sec to a germicidal lamp at a fluence of 0.67 J/m2/sec to deliver a 10 J/m2 dose, seeded at 3×105 cells/ml in fresh media, and harvested for RNA 24 hrs later. For IR treatment, 4×107 cells were exposed to 5 Gy IR 20 hrs after the PBS wash and harvested for RNA 4 hrs later.
Microarray hybridization. Total RNA was labeled with biotin and hybridized to a U95A_v2 GeneChip® microarray, according to manufacturer's protocols (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.). The expression level for each gene was calculated by Affymetrix GeneChip Microarray Analysis Suite software version 4.0. To account for differences in hybridization between different chips, data from hybridizations were scaled to the average of all data sets, as described by Tusher et al. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 98:5116-5121.
Analysis of microarray data. The data was in the form of change in gene expression, computed for each individual as the difference in expression before and after exposure to UV or IR. Analyses were based on changes in gene expression, because this was less sensitive to variation among different individuals than the basal or induced levels of expression. Thus, we used the paired data option in Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM), which ranks genes by change in expression relative to the standard deviation in multiple samples. IR-responsive and UV-responsive genes were identified using data from 9 normal individuals.” The false discovery rate (FDR) is the percentage of genes falsely called significant when the change in gene expression for each individual is randomly chosen to be left unaltered or multiplied by −1. Responsive genes were obtained by choosing a threshold corresponding to an FDR of 10%.
The nearest shrunken centroid (NSC) classifier was applied to the radiation toxicity and control classes (Tibshirani et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:6567-6572). The centroid for a class of samples was defined as a multi-component vector, in which each component was the expression of a predictive gene averaged over the samples in that class. NSC shrinks the class centroids towards the overall centroid after normalizing by the within-class standard deviation for each gene. The probability for radiation toxicity associated with an expression profile was computed from its distances to the radiation toxicity and control centroids.
The accuracy of a supervised classifier such as NSC may appear to be high when applied to the training samples, i.e., the samples used to define the centroids. However, this is not statistically valid. The number of genes is much greater than the number of samples in microarray experiments, providing many opportunities to find genes with expression patterns that correlate with the class of interest. Thus, supervised classifiers are susceptible to overfitting, and their accuracy must be tested by cross-validation on samples not used for training Ambroise and McLachlan (2002) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA; 99:6562-6566.
We subjected NSC to 14-fold cross-validation by dividing the samples into 14 subsets. Each subset contained one radiation sensitive patient plus 2 or 3 controls selected from the radiation controls, skin cancer patients, and non-cancer controls. We withheld one subset and trained NSC on the remaining samples to identify a set of predictive genes, which defined a radiation sensitive centroid and a control centroid. Each sample from the withheld subset was classified by its proximity to the nearest centroid. This protocol was repeated for each of the 14 subsets until every sample was classified. To avoid biasing our predictions, samples from the 9 subjects analyzed by SAM were excluded as training samples for NSC, but were assigned probabilities for radiation toxicity.
Hierarchical clustering (Eisen et al. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 95:14863-14868) used centered Pearson correlation and complete linkage clustering, and was displayed with TreeView. Biological functions were assigned from the literature and the SOURCE database.
Results
Radiation sensitive patients and controls. Fourteen radiation therapy patients were enrolled after suffering unusual levels of radiation toxicity within one month of treatment, as judged by a faculty member in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Stanford. Toxicity was severe enough so that 11 of these 14 patients required interruption or early termination of treatment. These interventions helped limit the reported toxicities to grades 2 and 3. Thirteen patients with radiation toxicity limited to grades 0 or 1 were recruited as controls. We attempted to match this patient group to the radiation sensitive group by radiation field and dose, tumor type, gender, and concurrent chemotherapy (Table 4). The average age of the radiation control patients was 59 years ±13 years, while the average age of the radiation sensitive patients was 51 years ±11 years. Since the risk of radiation toxicity increases with age (Turesson et al. (1996) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 36:1065-75), the younger age of the radiation sensitive patients was protective and should enhance the validity of our results. This study incorporated significant heterogeneity in radiation treatments. Importantly, the radiation sensitive group was matched to the radiation control group. This facilitated our goal to find genes that predicted acute toxicity, independently of the underlying tumor or site of treatment.
Cells were exposed to UV as well as IR to determine whether some radiation sensitive patients have a general defect in responding to DNA damage. Because skin cancer is associated with UV exposure, we enrolled 15 patients diagnosed with skin cancer before age 40 to serve as additional controls. A successful classification method should not assign a high risk for radiation toxicity to the skin cancer patients. Fifteen subjects without cancer were matched to the skin cancer patients for age, gender, and race. Because we recruited patients with early skin cancer, their average age was 38 years ±8 years, and the average age of the normal individuals was 31 years ±5 years, which were significantly younger than the age of the radiation sensitive patients. A total of 57 subjects were recruited for study.
Analysis by SAM and nearest shrunken centroids. To identify genes normally induced or repressed by IR or UV, we applied SAM to data from 9 subjects without a history of cancer. SAM identified 1491 IR-responsive genes and 2114 UV-responsive genes. We previously developed an enhancement of nearest centroids, nearest shrunken centroids (NSC), which successfully identified small sets of highly predictive genes for other classification problems. However, when we applied NSC to these IR and UV-responsive genes, classification required 1831 genes while generating 10 errors.
Heterogeneity-associated transformation. A new approach was needed to identify predictive genes. Radiation toxicity can arise from several different underlying genetic defects, generating divergent transcriptional responses. For example, one subset of radiation sensitive patients could have a defect in signaling through ATM, leading to a failure to activate p53 after IR and a blunted response in p53-induced genes. Another subset could have a defect in DNA repair, leading to prolonged activation of ATM and enhanced transcription of p53-induced genes.
To address the problem of heterogeneity, we performed the following heterogeneity-associated transformation (HAT)
where x(i) is the change in expression for gene i, and
Genes with heterogeneous transcriptional responses were successfully identified after transforming the data with HAT.
Prediction of radiation toxicity. Of the 24 predictive genes, 20 were IR-responsive, and 4 were UV-responsive. NSC/HAT used these responses to compute a probability of radiation toxicity for each subject in the 48-sample training set (
The genes identified during cross-validation were essentially the same as the genes identified from the full 48-sample training set. Among the 24 genes identified for each of the 14 cross-validation trials, 80% were among the 24 top-ranked genes from the 48-sample training set, and 99% were among the 52 top-ranked genes from that set (
Delayed toxicity in the form of progressive damage after completion of treatment is a grave problem. Three patients (RadS6, RadS7, and RadS10) suffered grade 4 delayed toxicity, and all were predicted successfully (Table 4). Toxicity from non-genetic factors cannot be predicted by our approach. Of the 5 patients with radiation toxicity not predicted by NSC/HAT, at least 2 (RadS3 and RadS5) were at high risk for toxicity from non-genetic factors. Patient RadS3 suffered grade 3 mucositis from an experimental protocol that included high dose radiation plus tirapazamine, cisplatin, and 5-FU. Subsequent review of patients treated by this protocol revealed that 28 of 62 (45%) suffered mucositis of grade 3 or higher. Patient RadS5 had an arteriovenous malformation that was treated with stereotactic guidance of a single 18 Gy dose to a 1.8 cm3 volume in the midbrain and pons. A statistical model indicates that the midbrain and pons region has the highest probability for permanent symptomatic injury, with a 40% to 45% probability for the dose and volume delivered to RadS5. To determine whether RadS3 and RadS5 had an effect on the results, we excluded them and repeated the analysis. Despite the decreased number of samples available for training, NSC/HAT successfully predicted toxicity in 9 of the remaining 12 cases, with no false positives among 43 controls.
Ruling out confounding variables. The enormous number of genes analyzed by microarrays offers great opportunity for discovery. However, transcriptional responses that appear to be predictive might instead be due to a confounding variable. Here, the confounding variable could be some other difference between the radiation sensitive patients and the control subjects. The subjects with no cancer or skin cancer were younger than the subjects with radiation toxicity. They were also free of cancers of the internal organs, which might be associated with an abnormal response to DNA damage. Furthermore, they were never treated with IR, and 5% to 10% might be at risk for toxicity. To address this problem, we omitted the 30 subjects with no cancer or skin cancer and analyzed the 27 radiation therapy patients. This restricted analysis was also successful despite the fewer samples available for training. A set of 13 genes yielded the same 5 false negatives reported above, with no false positives among the 13 controls. When tested on the 30 omitted subjects, these 13 genes predicted only 3 positives, consistent with the expected low risk for toxicity in the general population. The set of predictive genes was stable in the face of restricted analysis. Nine of the 13 genes were among the 24 top-ranked genes identified with the 48-sample training set, and 20 of the 24 predictive genes from the 48-sample training set were among the top 81 ranked genes in the restricted analysis.
Heterogeneity among the radiation sensitive patients. The 57 subjects and 52 top-ranked predictive genes identified by HAT/NSC were organized by hierarchical clustering (
Genes with transcriptional responses that predict radiation toxicity. No single gene predicted radiation toxicity. Instead, the response of several genes provided a signature for toxicity. The 52 top-ranked predictive genes are involved in several different cellular processes (
Four genes had roles in DNA repair. XPC-complementing protein (RAD23 homolog B) is involved in nucleotide excision repair. Its response to IR was abnormal in many radiation sensitive samples. The 8-oxo-dGTPase gene product (NUDT1) hydrolyzes 8-oxo-dGTP to 8-oxo-dGMP, which is then converted to the nucleoside, 8-oxo-dG, thus preventing misincorporation of 8-oxo-dGTP into DNA. Urinary 8-oxo-dG is a biomarker for oxidative DNA damage, and decreased levels correlated with acute radiosensitivity in breast cancer patients. These results may be explained by the abnormal IR-suppressed expression of 8-oxo-dGTPase we observed in several radiation sensitive patients (
Human RuvB-like protein 1 (RUVBL1) is homologous to bacterial RuvB, a DNA helicase that catalyses branch migration of Holliday junctions during HR. RuvB-like proteins are also components of the yeast INO80 complex, which remodels chromatin, and confers resistance to DNA damaging agents. PTB-associated splicing factor (PSF) may be involved in HR by promoting DNA strand invasion. Interestingly, RUVBL1 and PSF responded abnormally to UV but not IR in many radiation sensitive patients. None of the 52 top-ranked predictive genes was involved in nonhomologous end-joining. However, this pathway does not respond to IR transcriptionally, but rather involves activation of a DNA-dependent protein kinase.
Five predictive genes are involved in the general stress response. Cells from radiation sensitive patients showed abnormal IR responses in genes encoding c-fos, MAP kinase-activated protein kinase 2 (MAPKAP2), heat shock protein 27 (HSPB1), which is a substrate of MAPKAP2 phosphorylation, and protein phosphatase 1A (PPM1A), which inhibits stress-activated protein kinase cascades. Abnormal UV responses were observed for calmodulin (CALM1).
Four predictive genes are involved in the ubiquitin/proteasome protein degradation pathway, which is induced by oxidative stress. Abnormal IR responses were observed for ubiquitin B (UBB), proteasome activator subunit (PSME2), and two subunits of the 26S proteasome, β subunit 4 (PSMB4) and the non-ATPase subunit 1 (PSMD1).
Three cell cycle genes responded abnormally to UV in some radiation sensitive patients: cyclin B1 (CCNB1), cyclin A2 (CCNA2), and CDC28 protein kinase 2 (CKS2), which negatively regulates CDK-cyclin complexes.
Apoptosis genes included tumor necrosis factor (TNFSF7), core binding factor (CBFB), and the mitochondrial adenine nucleotide transporter (ANT). ANT regulates mitochondrial membrane permeability during apoptosis. The fibroblast isoform of ANT (SLC25A6) responded abnormally to IR, and the liver isoform (SLC25A5) responded abnormally to UV in most radiation sensitive patients. Four predictive genes were involved in RNA processing, and the remaining 18 predictive genes were involved in a diverse set of pathways.
Many cases of radiation toxicity are associated with abnormal transcriptional responses to DNA damage. To identify a subset of highly predictive genes, we subjected the transcriptional responses to a heterogeneity-associated transformation (HAT). Classification by nearest shrunken centroids (NSC) with HAT predicted 9 of 14 cases of radiation toxicity with no false positives among 43 controls. Notably, the false positive rate was very low with a 95% confidence interval of 0% to 7%. Toxicity was successfully predicted in 64% of the radiation sensitive patients with a 95% confidence interval of 42% to 87% by the exact binomial distribution. Even the lower limit of this confidence interval suggests that a significant number of adverse radiation reactions are associated with abnormal transcriptional responses. Furthermore, 2 of the 5 patients not predicted by NSC/HAT were at high risk for radiation toxicity from non-genetic factors and may have been properly classified in terms of transcriptional responses.
These results are valid for several reasons. First, to guard against the identification of genes that later fail when tested on an independent set of samples, our results were subjected to cross-validation. We used 14-fold cross-validation, which is more robust than the commonly used “leave-one-out” approach. Second, we imposed the additional test of restricted analysis to rule out confounding variables; when we restricted the training set to the 27 radiation therapy patients, there was little effect on prediction error or on the identity of predictive genes. Third, we applied nearest centroids with HAT to the IR responses of all 12,625 probe sets on the microarray. On cross-validation, we successfully predicted 8 of 14 cases of radiation toxicity (RadS5, RadS7, and RadS9-14) with only 2 false positives (RadC8 and RadC9) among the 43 controls. Thus, our results were not an artifact of gene selection bias.
Finally, our protocol for predicting radiation toxicity used a plausible biological endpoint, the transcriptional response to DNA damage. Appropriately, 20 of the 24 top-ranked genes contributed IR responses, and only 4 genes contributed UV responses. When we attempted to predict radiation toxicity from the less plausible endpoint of basal gene expression, we obtained a low error rate after cross-validation. However, basal expression failed our additional test of restricting analysis to the radiation therapy patients; the prediction error rate increased significantly, and the set of predictive genes changed markedly, indicating the presence of confounding variables that affected basal gene expression.
The mechanisms of radiation toxicity are heterogeneous. Some radiation sensitive patients had abnormal transcriptional responses to both UV and IR, and others had abnormal responses only to IR. The abnormal responses involved genes from a diverse set of pathways with functions in DNA repair, response to stress, protein degradation, cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, and RNA processing. The genes with abnormal responses may not be mutated, but rather reflect an abnormality in some other gene. For example, abnormal responses in both UV and IR could arise from mutations affecting p53 or ATR. In patients with abnormal responses restricted primarily to IR, the underlying mutations could be in the ATM-dependent signaling pathway or a DNA double-strand break repair pathway. Radiation toxicity may also arise from the combined effect of polymorphisms in several genes.
It is evident that subject invention provides a convenient and effective way of determining whether a patient will be responsive to therapy. The subject methods will provide a number of benefits, including avoidance of delays in alternative treatments, elimination of exposure to adverse effects of therapeutic antibodies and reduction of unnecessary expense. As such, the subject invention represents a significant contribution to the art.
All publications and patent applications cited in this specification are herein incorporated by reference as if each individual publication or patent application were specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference. The citation of any publication is for its disclosure prior to the filing date and should not be construed as an admission that the present invention is not entitled to antedate such publication by virtue of prior invention.
Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail by way of illustration and example for purposes of clarity of understanding, it is readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of this invention that certain changes and modifications may be made thereto without departing from the spirit or scope of the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6015673 | Gonzalez et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6251362 | Wahl et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 20030165954 | Katagiri et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20040018527 | Chang et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO 0184139 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20040152109 A1 | Aug 2004 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60419016 | Oct 2002 | US |
