How will this molecule smell?: We still do not understand what a given substance will smell like. Keller et al. launched an international crowd-sourced competition in which many teams tried to solve how the smell of a molecule will be perceived by humans. The teams were given access to a database of responses from subjects who had sniffed a large number of molecules and been asked to rate each smell across a range of different qualities. The teams were also given a comprehensive list of the physical and chemical features of the molecules smelled. The teams produced algorithms to predict the correspondence between the quality of each smell and a given molecule. The best models that emerged from this challenge could accurately predict how a new molecule would smell. Science , this issue p. 820

Prostate cancer is the second most occurring cancer in men worldwide. To better understand the mechanisms of tumorigenesis and possible treatment responses, we developed a mathematical model of prostate cancer which considers the major signalling pathways known to be deregulated. We personalised this Boolean model to molecular data to reflect the heterogeneity and specific response to perturbations of cancer patients. A total of 488 prostate samples were used to build patient-specific models and compared to available clinical data. Additionally, eight prostate cell line-specific models were built to validate our approach with dose-response data of several drugs. The effects of single and combined drugs were tested in these models under different growth conditions. We identified 15 actionable points of interventions in one cell line-specific model whose inactivation hinders tumorigenesis. To validate these results, we tested nine small molecule inhibitors of five of those putative targets and found a dose-dependent effect on four of them, notably those targeting HSP90 and PI3K. These results highlight the predictive power of our personalised Boolean models and illustrate how they can be used for precision oncology.

Transcriptional perturbation signatures are valuable data sources for functional genomics. Linking perturbation signatures to screenings opens the possibility to model cellular phenotypes from expression data and to identify efficacious drugs. We linked perturbation transcriptomics data from the LINCS-L1000 project with cell viability information upon genetic (Achilles project) and chemical (CTRP screen) perturbations yielding more than 90 000 signature–viability pairs. An integrated analysis showed that the cell viability signature is a major factor underlying perturbation signatures. The signature is linked to transcription factors regulating cell death, proliferation and division time. We used the cell viability–signature relationship to predict viability from transcriptomics signatures, and identified and validated compounds that induce cell death in tumor cell lines. We showed that cellular toxicity can lead to unexpected similarity of signatures, confounding mechanism of action discovery. Consensus compound signatures predicted cell-specific drug sensitivity, even if the signature is not measured in the same cell line, and outperformed conventional drug-specific features. Our results can help in understanding mechanisms behind cell death and removing confounding factors of transcriptomic perturbation screens. To interactively browse our results and predict cell viability in new gene expression samples, we developed CEVIChE (CEll VIability Calculator from gene Expression; https://saezlab.shinyapps.io/ceviche/).

Accurately predicting cellular responses to perturbations is essential for understanding cell behaviour in both healthy and diseased states. While perturbation data is ideal for building such predictive models, its availability is considerably lower than baseline (non-perturbed) cellular data. To address this limitation, several foundation cell models have been developed using large-scale single-cell gene expression data. These models are fine-tuned after pre-training for specific tasks, such as predicting post-perturbation gene expression profiles, and are considered state-of-the-art for these problems. However, proper benchmarking of these models remains an unsolved challenge. In this study, we benchmarked two recently published foundation models, scGPT and scFoundation, against baseline models. Surprisingly, we found that even the simplest baseline model—taking the mean of training examples—outperformed scGPT and scFoundation. Furthermore, basic machine learning models that incorporate biologically meaningful features outperformed scGPT by a large margin. Additionally, we identified that the current Perturb-Seq benchmark datasets exhibit low perturbation-specific variance, making them suboptimal for evaluating such models. Our results highlight important limitations in current benchmarking approaches and provide insights into more effectively evaluating post-perturbation gene expression prediction models.

The Columbia Cancer Target Discovery and Development (CTD2) Center is developing PANACEA, a resource comprising dose-responses and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) profiles of 25 cell lines perturbed with ∼400 clinical oncology drugs, to study a tumor-specific drug mechanism of action. Here, this resource serves as the basis for a DREAM Challenge assessing the accuracy and sensitivity of computational algorithms for de novo drug polypharmacology predictions. Dose-response and perturbational profiles for 32 kinase inhibitors are provided to 21 teams who are blind to the identity of the compounds. The teams are asked to predict high-affinity binding targets of each compound among ∼1,300 targets cataloged in DrugBank. The best performing methods leverage gene expression profile similarity analysis as well as deep-learning methodologies trained on individual datasets. This study lays the foundation for future integrative analyses of pharmacogenomic data, reconciliation of polypharmacology effects in different tumor contexts, and insights into network-based assessments of drug mechanisms of action.