title: Beyond IC50s: Towards Robust Statistical Methods forin vitroAssociation Studies.
abstract: Cell line cytotoxicity assays have become increasingly popular approaches for genetic and genomic studies of differential cytotoxic response. There are an increasing number of success stories, but relatively little evaluation of the statistical approaches used in such studies. In the vast majority of these studies, concentration response is summarized using curve-fitting approaches, and then summary measure(s) are used as the phenotype in subsequent genetic association studies. The curve is usually summarized by a single parameter such as the curve's inflection point (e.g. the EC/IC50). Such modeling makes major assumptions and has statistical limitations that should be considered. In the current review, we discuss the limitations of the EC/IC50as a phenotype in association studies, and highlight some potential limitations with a simulation experiment. Finally, we discuss some alternative analysis approaches that have been shown to be more robust.
authors.affiliation: Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, USA.
authors.forename: Andrew
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Beam
authors.affiliation: Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, USA ; Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, USA.
authors.forename: Alison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Motsinger-Reif
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1970 Dec 10;245(23):6335-6
references.pmid: 5484812
references.citation: Front Genet. 2011 Dec 14;2:86
references.pmid: 22303380
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2007 Jun 1;67(11):5425-33
references.pmid: 17545624
references.citation: Dose Response. 2011;9(3):387-409
references.pmid: 22013401
references.citation: Mol Cancer Ther. 2011 Oct;10(10):1839-45
references.pmid: 21750217
references.citation: Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006 Mar;27(3):149-57
references.pmid: 16483674
references.citation: BioData Min. 2012 Dec 12;5(1):21
references.pmid: 23234571
references.citation: Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2012 Nov;22(11):796-802
references.pmid: 23047291
references.citation: Mol Cancer Ther. 2008 Sep;7(9):3038-46
references.pmid: 18765826
references.citation: J Biomol Screen. 2010 Dec;15(10):1183-93
references.pmid: 20980692
references.citation: Pharmacogenomics. 2011 Oct;12(10):1407-15
references.pmid: 22008047
references.citation: Pharmacogenomics. 2012 Jan;13(1):55-70
references.pmid: 22176622
references.citation: Pharmacogenomics. 2014 Feb;15(2):137-46
references.pmid: 24444404
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11809-14
references.pmid: 15282376
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 May 05;6(5):e17561
references.pmid: 21573211
references.citation: Pharmacol Rev. 2009 Dec;61(4):413-29
references.pmid: 20038569