Exploring Alzheimer's Disease Molecular Variability via Calculation of Personalized Transcriptional Signatures

Explant Modeling of the Immune Environment of Head and Neck Cancer

Patients exhibit distinct responses to immunotherapies that are thought to be linked to their tumor immune environment. However, wide variations in outcomes are also observed in patients with matched baseline tumor environments, indicating that the biological response to treatment is not currently predictable using a snapshot analysis. To investigate the relationship between the immune environment of tumors and the biological response to immunotherapies, we characterized four murine head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) models on two genetic backgrounds. Using tumor explants from those models, we identified correlations between the composition of infiltrating immune cells and baseline cytokine profiles prior to treatment. Following treatment with PD-1 blockade, CTLA-4 blockade, or OX40 stimulation, we observed inter-individual variability in the response to therapy between genetically identical animals bearing the same tumor. These distinct biological responses to treatment were not linked to the initial tumor immune environment, meaning that outcome would not be predictable from a baseline analysis of the tumor infiltrates. We similarly performed the explant assay on patient HNSCC tumors and found significant variability between the baseline environment of the tumors and their response to therapy. We propose that tumor explants provide a rapid biological assay to assess response to candidate immunotherapies that may allow matching therapies to individual patient tumors. Further development of explant approaches may allow screening and monitoring of treatment responses in HNSCC.

Omics Data and Their Integrative Analysis to Support Stratified Medicine in Neurodegenerative Diseases

Molecular and clinical heterogeneity is increasingly recognized as a common characteristic of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This heterogeneity makes difficult the development of early diagnosis and effective treatment approaches, as well as the design and testing of new drugs. As such, the stratification of patients into meaningful disease subgroups, with clinical and biological relevance, may improve disease management and the development of effective treatments. To this end, omics technologies-such as genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics-are contributing to offer a more comprehensive view of molecular pathways underlying the development of NDs, helping to differentiate subtypes of patients based on their specific molecular signatures. In this article, we discuss how omics technologies and their integration have provided new insights into the molecular heterogeneity underlying the most prevalent NDs, aiding to define early diagnosis and progression markers as well as therapeutic targets that can translate into stratified treatment approaches, bringing us closer to the goal of personalized medicine in neurology.

Using machine intelligence to uncover Alzheimer’s disease progression heterogeneity

Aim: Research suggests that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is heterogeneous with numerous subtypes. Through a proprietary interactive ML system, several underlying biological mechanisms associated with AD pathology were uncovered. This paper is an introduction to emerging analytic efforts that can more precisely elucidate the heterogeneity of AD. Methods: A public AD data set (GSE84422) consisting of transcriptomic data of postmortem brain samples from healthy controls (n = 121) and AD (n = 380) subjects was analyzed. Data were processed by an artificial intelligence platform designed to discover potential drug repurposing candidates, followed by an interactive augmented intelligence program. Results: Using perspective analytics, six perspective classes were identified: Class I is defined by TUBB1, ASB4, and PDE5A; Class II by NRG2 and ZNF3; Class III by IGF1, ASB4, and GTSE1; Class IV is defined by cDNA FLJ39269, ITGA1, and CPM; Class V is defined by PDE5A, PSEN1, and NDUFS8; and Class VI is defined by DCAF17, cDNA FLJ75819, and SLC33A1. It is hypothesized that these classes represent biological mechanisms that may act alone or in any combination to manifest an Alzheimer’s pathology. Conclusions: Using a limited transcriptomic public database, six different classes that drive AD were uncovered, supporting the premise that AD is a heterogeneously complex disorder. The perspective classes highlighted genetic pathways associated with vasculogenesis, cellular signaling and differentiation, metabolic function, mitochondrial function, nitric oxide, and metal ion metabolism. The interplay among these genetic factors reveals a more profound underlying complexity of AD that may be responsible for the confluence of several biological factors. These results are not exhaustive; instead, they demonstrate that even within a relatively small study sample, next-generation machine intelligence can uncover multiple genetically driven subtypes. The models and the underlying hypotheses generated using novel analytic methods may translate into potential treatment pathways.