Transcriptomic Profiles Carry Most of the Multi-Omics Signal for Drug Sensitivity Prediction in Cancer Cell Lines: A Cross-Lineage and Independent-Screen Evaluation of Twelve Anticancer Agents

Background/Objectives: Combining omics layers is widely expected to improve cancer drug response prediction, but this is rarely tested under family-wise error control or on an independent screen. We measured what somatic mutation and copy number data add to gene expression, and how well models transfer to unseen lineages and an external screen. Methods: We linked the Cancer Dependency Map transcriptomic, somatic mutation and copy number profiles to GDSC2 dose–response data for twelve mechanistically diverse anticancer compounds in 509 cell lines. Lineage-only, single-modality, early-fusion and stacked late-fusion gradient-boosting models were compared by repeated cross-validation (DeLong tests, Holm adjustment), leave-one-lineage-out transfer across eleven solid tumour histologies, and external validation on 77-163 held-out PRISM cell lines per compound. Results: Gene expression models outperformed tissue-of-origin baselines for all twelve agents (AUC 0.69–0.84; gains 0.024–0.169; Holm-adjusted p < 0.001 for seven drugs). Adding mutation and copy number data changed AUC by −0.015 to +0.035, and no per-drug gain survived multiplicity correction. Pooled across compounds, early fusion added 0.008 AUC (95% CI 0.000–0.016), a gain that fold-level re-analysis did not support. Mixed-lineage cross-validation exceeded leave-one-lineage-out AUC by a median of 0.030 (p = 0.0005). External PRISM AUCs ranged from 0.46 to 0.76 and followed the concordance between the two screens (Spearman rho = 0.72, p = 0.008). TreeSHAP attributions recovered known determinants, including SLFN11, TP53, BRAF, PIK3CA and downstream MAPK transcriptional effectors. Conclusions: In this twelve-drug panel, gene expression captured most of the predictable response variation. Accuracy fell on held-out lineages and on an independent screen, which sets empirical limits on how far these models can generalise.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-10-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18213503
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transcriptomic Profiles Carry Most of the Multi-Omics Signal for Drug Sensitivity Prediction in Cancer Cell Lines: A Cross-Lineage and Independent-Screen Evaluation of Twelve Anticancer Agents

Thoraia Shinawi, Dareen Alyousfi, Haifa S. Almukadi, Babajan Banaganapalli et al.
1 links
Cancers
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
article

Transcriptomic Profiles Carry Most of the Multi-Omics Signal for Drug Sensitivity Prediction in Cancer Cell Lines: A Cross-Lineage and Independent-Screen Evaluation of Twelve Anticancer Agents

Thoraia Shinawi, Dareen Alyousfi, Haifa S. Almukadi, Babajan Banaganapalli, Sultan A. Alfawaz, Noor Ahmad Shaik, Dalal Alfawaz, Ashraf A. El Harouni, Khalda K. Nasser
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Combining omics layers is widely expected to improve cancer drug response prediction, but this is rarely tested under family-wise error control or on an independent screen. We measured what somatic mutation and copy number data add to gene expression, and how well models transfer to unseen lineages and an external screen. Methods: We linked the Cancer Dependency Map transcriptomic, somatic mutation and copy number profiles to GDSC2 dose–response data for twelve mechanistically diverse anticancer compounds in 509 cell lines. Lineage-only, single-modality, early-fusion and stacked late-fusion gradient-boosting models were compared by repeated cross-validation (DeLong tests, Holm adjustment), leave-one-lineage-out transfer across eleven solid tumour histologies, and external validation on 77-163 held-out PRISM cell lines per compound. Results: Gene expression models outperformed tissue-of-origin baselines for all twelve agents (AUC 0.69–0.84; gains 0.024–0.169; Holm-adjusted p < 0.001 for seven drugs). Adding mutation and copy number data changed AUC by −0.015 to +0.035, and no per-drug gain survived multiplicity correction. Pooled across compounds, early fusion added 0.008 AUC (95% CI 0.000–0.016), a gain that fold-level re-analysis did not support. Mixed-lineage cross-validation exceeded leave-one-lineage-out AUC by a median of 0.030 (p = 0.0005). External PRISM AUCs ranged from 0.46 to 0.76 and followed the concordance between the two screens (Spearman rho = 0.72, p = 0.008). TreeSHAP attributions recovered known determinants, including SLFN11, TP53, BRAF, PIK3CA and downstream MAPK transcriptional effectors. Conclusions: In this twelve-drug panel, gene expression captured most of the predictable response variation. Accuracy fell on held-out lineages and on an independent screen, which sets empirical limits on how far these models can generalise.

CancersVol. 18(21)
King Abdulaziz University (SA)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon