Khwaja, A. et al. Acute myeloid leukaemia. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2, Article 16010 (2016).
Kurtz, S. E. et al. Molecularly targeted drug combinations demonstrate selective effectiveness for myeloid- and lymphoid-derived hematologic malignancies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703094114 (2017).
Day, D. & Siu, L. L. Approaches to modernize the combination drug development paradigm. Genome Med. 8, 115 (2016).
Google Scholar
O’Neil, J. et al. An unbiased oncology compound screen to identify novel combination strategies. Mol. Cancer Ther. 15, 1155–1162 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jia, J. et al. Mechanisms of drug combinations: interaction and network perspectives. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 111–128 (2009).
Google Scholar
Nair, R., Salinas-Illarena, A. & Baldauf, H.-M. New strategies to treat AML: novel insights into AML survival pathways and combination therapies. Leukemia 35, 299–311 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tyner, J. W. & Others, A. Functional genomic landscape of acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature 562, 526–531 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schenone, M., Dančík, V., Wagner, B. K. & Clemons, P. A. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9, 232–240 (2013).
Hopkins, A. L. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 682–690 (2008).
Google Scholar
Calzolari, D. et al. Search algorithms as a framework for the optimization of drug combinations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000249 (2008).
Google Scholar
Feala, J. D. et al. Systems approaches and algorithms for discovery of combinatorial therapies. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 2, 181–193 (2010).
Google Scholar
Wong, P. K. et al. Closed-loop control of cellular functions using combinatory drugs guided by a stochastic search algorithm. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5105–5110 (2008).
Google Scholar
Menden, M. P. et al. Community assessment to advance computational prediction of cancer drug combinations in a pharmacogenomic screen. Nat. Commun. 10, 2674 (2019).
Google Scholar
Preuer, K. et al. DeepSynergy: predicting anti-cancer drug synergy with Deep Learning. Bioinformatics 34, 1538–1546 (2018).
Google Scholar
Garnett, M. J. et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 483, 570–575 (2012).
Google Scholar
Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603–607 (2012).
Google Scholar
Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S.-I. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Guyon, I., Von Luxburg, U., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., & Garnett, R.) 4765–4774 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).
Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).
Google Scholar
Shrikumar, A., Greenside, P. & Kundaje, A. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) 3145–3153 (PMLR, 2017).
Sundararajan, M., Taly, A. & Yan, Q. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) 3319–3328 (JMLR.org, 2017).
Shapley, L. S. A value for n-person games. Class. game theory 69 (1997).
Aas, K., Jullum, M. & Løland, A. Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: more accurate approximations to Shapley values. Artif. Intell. 298, 103502 (2021).
Google Scholar
Koo, P. K. & Ploenzke, M. Improving representations of genomic sequence motifs in convolutional networks with exponential activations. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 258–266 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schreiber, J. & Singh, R. Machine learning for profile prediction in genomics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 65, 35–41 (2021).
Google Scholar
Covert, I., Lundberg, S. & Lee, S.-I. Explaining by removing: a unified framework for model explanation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 1–90 (2021).
Kim, N. et al. Prediction of the sequence-specific cleavage activity of Cas9 variants. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1328–1336 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kim, H. K. et al. Predicting the efficiency of prime editing guide RNAs in human cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 198–206 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schultebraucks, K. et al. A validated predictive algorithm of post-traumatic stress course following emergency department admission after a traumatic stressor. Nat. Med. 26, 1084–1088 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hyland, S. L. et al. Early prediction of circulatory failure in the intensive care unit using machine learning. Nat. Med. 26, 364–373 (2020).
Google Scholar
Meier, F. et al. Deep learning the collisional cross sections of the peptide universe from a million experimental values. Nat. Commun. 12, Article 1185 (2021).
Bar, N. et al. A reference map of potential determinants for the human serum metabolome. Nature 588, 135–140 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Perez, R. & Bajorath, J. Interpretation of compound activity predictions from complex machine learning models using local approximations and shapley values. J. Med. Chem. 63, 8761–8777 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Perez, R. & Bajorath, J. Interpretation of machine learning models using shapley values: application to compound potency and multi-target activity predictions. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 34, 1013–1026 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tang, Y.-C. & Gottlieb, A. Explainable drug sensitivity prediction through cancer pathway enrichment. Sci. Rep. 11, Article 3128 (2021).
Braithwaite, B. et al. Detection of medications associated with Alzheimer’s disease using ensemble methods and cooperative game theory. Int. J. Med. Inform. 141, 104142 (2020).
Google Scholar
Breiman, L. Statistical modeling: the two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Stat. Sci. 16, 199–231 (2001).
Google Scholar
Dong, J. & Rudin, C. Variable importance clouds: a way to explore variable importance for the set of good models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.03209 (2019).
Hooker, S., Erhan, D., Kindermans, P.-J. & Kim, B. A benchmark for interpretability methods in deep neural networks. In 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Beygelzimer, A., d’Alché-Buc, F., Fox, E. & Garnett, R.) (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019).
Song, L., Bedo, J., Borgwardt, K. M., Gretton, A. & Smola, A. Gene selection via the BAHSIC family of algorithms. Bioinformatics 23, i490–i498 (2007).
Google Scholar
Zou, H. & Hastie, T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 67, 301–320 (2005).
Google Scholar
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S. & Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002).
Google Scholar
Avsec, Ž. et al. Base-resolution models of transcription-factor binding reveal soft motif syntax. Nat. Genet. 53, 354–366 (2021).
Google Scholar
Maslova, A. et al. Deep learning of immune cell differentiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 25655–25666 (2020).
Google Scholar
Farzaneh, N., Williamson, C. A., Gryak, J. & Najarian, K. A hierarchical expert-guided machine learning framework for clinical decision support systems: an application to traumatic brain injury prognostication. npj Digit. Med. 4, 78 (2021).
Google Scholar
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Google Scholar
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 785–794 (ACM, 2016).
King, R. D., Orhobor, O. I. & Taylor, C. C. Cross-validation is safe to use. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 276 (2021).
Google Scholar
Shwartz-Ziv, R. & Armon, A. Tabular data: deep learning is not all you need. Inf. Fusion 81, 84–90 (2022).
Google Scholar
Gurska, L. M., Ames, K. & Gritsman, K. Signaling pathways in leukemic stem cells. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1143, 1–39 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kumar, A. R., Sarver, A. L., Wu, B. & Kersey, J. H. Meis1 maintains stemness signature in MLL-AF9 leukemia. Blood 115, 3642–3643 (2010).
Google Scholar
Liu, J. et al. Meis1 is critical to the maintenance of human acute myeloid leukemia cells independent of MLL rearrangements. Ann. Hematol. 96, 567–574 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pei, S. et al. Monocytic subclones confer resistance to venetoclax-based therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. 10, 536–551 (2020).
Google Scholar
Takam Kamga, P. et al. Prognostic impact of notch signaling in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Blood 132, 5242 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kranc, K. R. et al. Cited2 is an essential regulator of adult hematopoietic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 5, 659–665 (2009).
Google Scholar
Korthuis, P. M. et al. CITED2-mediated human hematopoietic stem cell maintenance is critical for acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 29, 625–635 (2015).
Tanaka, M. et al. Targeted disruption of oncostatin M receptor results in altered hematopoiesis. Blood 102, 3154–3162 (2003).
Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Li, Y. & Wu, H. A novel scoring system for acute myeloid leukemia risk assessment based on the expression levels of six genes. Int. J. Mol. Med. 42, 1495–1507 (2018).
Google Scholar
Zhang, N., Chen, Y., Lou, S., Shen, Y. & Deng, J. A six-gene-based prognostic model predicts complete remission and overall survival in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Onco. Targets Ther. 12, 6591–6604 (2019).
Lin, W. et al. SLC7A11/xCT in cancer: biological functions and therapeutic implications. Am. J. Cancer Res. 10, 3106–3126 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kornblau, S. M. et al. Recurrent expression signatures of cytokines and chemokines are present and are independently prognostic in acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplasia. Blood 116, 4251–4261 (2010).
Google Scholar
Goenka, S. & Kaplan, M. H. Transcriptional regulation by STAT6. Immunol. Res. 50, 87–96 (2011).
Google Scholar
Peña-Martínez, P. et al. Interleukin 4 induces apoptosis of acute myeloid leukemia cells in a Stat6-dependent manner. Leukemia 32, 588–596 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bunting, K. D. et al. Increased numbers of committed myeloid progenitors but not primitive hematopoietic stem/progenitors in mice lacking STAT6 expression. J. Leukoc. Biol. 76, 484–490 (2004).
Google Scholar
Li, M. J. et al. GWASdb: a database for human genetic variants identified by genome-wide association studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1047–D1054 (2012).
Google Scholar
Churpek, J. E. et al. Genomic analysis of germ line and somatic variants in familial myelodysplasia/acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 126, 2484–2490 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lo, F.-Y. et al. Metabolic alterations may contribute to cabozantinib resistance in acute myeloid leukemia cells with FLT3-ITD. Blood 132, 2785 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gal, H. et al. Gene expression profiles of AML derived stem cells; similarity to hematopoietic stem cells. Leukemia 20, 2147–2154 (2006).
Gentles, A. J., Plevritis, S. K., Majeti, R. & Alizadeh, A. A. Association of a leukemic stem cell gene expression signature with clinical outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia. JAMA 304, 2706–2715 (2010).
Google Scholar
Pollyea, D. A. et al. Venetoclax with azacitidine disrupts energy metabolism and targets leukemia stem cells in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Nat. Med. 24, 1859–1866 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kuusanmäki, H. et al. Phenotype-based drug screening reveals association between venetoclax response and differentiation stage in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica 105, 708–720 (2020).
Jones, C. L. et al. Cysteine depletion targets leukemia stem cells through inhibition of electron transport complex II. Blood 134, 389–394 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stevens, B. M. et al. Fatty acid metabolism underlies venetoclax resistance in acute myeloid leukemia stem cells. Nat. Cancer 1, 1176–1187 (2020).
Google Scholar
Corces, M. R. et al. Lineage-specific and single-cell chromatin accessibility charts human hematopoiesis and leukemia evolution. Nat. Genet. 48, 1193–1203 (2016).
Google Scholar
Kurtz, S. E. et al. Dual inhibition of JAK1/2 kinases and BCL2: a promising therapeutic strategy for acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 32, 2025–2028 (2018).
Google Scholar
Grabisch, M. & Roubens, M. An axiomatic approach to the concept of interaction among players in cooperative games. Int. J. Game Theory 28, 547–565 (1999).
Google Scholar
Pollyea, D. A., Amaya, M., Strati, P. & Konopleva, M. Y. Venetoclax for AML: changing the treatment paradigm. Blood Adv. 3, 4326–4335 (2019).
Google Scholar
Karjalainen, R. et al. Elevated expression of S100A8 and S100A9 correlates with resistance to the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in AML. Leukemia 33, 2548–2553 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lannert, H. et al. Expression of S100 proteins in normal human hematopoietic stem cells and in AML. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 7072 (2008).
Google Scholar
Han, L. et al. Concomitant targeting of BCL2 with venetoclax and MAPK signaling with cobimetinib in acute myeloid leukemia models. Haematologica 105, 697–707 (2020).
Bock, F. J., Cloix, C., Zerbst, D. & Tait, S. W. G. Apoptosis-induced FGF signalling promotes non-cell autonomous resistance to cell death. bioRxiv (2020).
Lamba, J. K. Genetic factors influencing cytarabine therapy. Pharmacogenomics 10, 1657–1674 (2009).
Google Scholar
DeGrave, A. J., Janizek, J. D. & Lee, S.-I. AI for radiographic COVID-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 610–619 (2021).
Geirhos, R. et al. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 665–673 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kundu, S. AI in medicine must be explainable. Nat. Med. 27, 1328 (2021).
Bzdok, D., Engemann, D. & Thirion, B. Inference and prediction diverge in biomedicine. Patterns 1, 100119 (2020).
Google Scholar
Efron, B. Prediction, estimation, and attribution. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 115, 636–655 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lee, S.-I. et al. A machine learning approach to integrate big data for precision medicine in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat. Commun. 9, 42 (2018).
Google Scholar
Erion, G., Janizek, J. D., Sturmfels, P., Lundberg, S. & Lee, S.-I. Learning explainable models using attribution priors. Preprint at arXiv1906.10670v1 (2019).
Weinberger, E., Janizek, J. & Lee, S.-I. Learning deep attribution priors based on prior knowledge. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.10065 (2019).
Kuenzi, B. M. et al. Predicting drug response and synergy using a deep learning model of human cancer cells. Cancer Cell 38, 672–684 (2020).
Google Scholar
Gut, G., Stark, S. G., Rätsch, G. & Davidson, N. R. PmVAE: learning interpretable single-cell representations with pathway modules. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.28.428664 (2021).
Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I. & Yosef, N. Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics. Nat. Methods 15, 1053–1058 (2018).
Google Scholar
Dincer, A. B., Celik, S., Hiranuma, N. & Lee, S.-I. DeepProfile: deep learning of cancer molecular profiles for precision medicine. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/278739 (2018).
Štrumbelj, E. & Kononenko, I. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 41, 647–665 (2014).
Google Scholar
Chen, H., Janizek, J. D., Lundberg, S. & Lee, S.-I. True to the model or true to the data? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.16234 (2020).
Kokhlikyan, N. et al. Captum: a unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.07896 (2020).
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S. & Guestrin, C. Why should I trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135–1144 (ACM, 2016).
Paszke, A. et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 8026–8037 (2019).
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Nguyen, G., Kim, D. & Nguyen, A. The effectiveness of feature attribution methods and its correlation with automatic evaluation scores. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 26422–26436 (2021).
Covert, I., Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S.-I. Understanding global feature contributions with additive importance measures. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 17212–17223 (2020).
Adebayo, J., Muelly, M., Liccardi, I. & Kim, B. Debugging tests for model explanations. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 700–712 (2020).
Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140 (1996).
Google Scholar
Leek, J. T., Johnson, W. E., Parker, H. S., Jaffe, A. E. & Storey, J. D. The sva package for removing batch effects and other unwanted variation in high-throughput experiments. Bioinformatics 28, 882–883 (2012).
Google Scholar
Edgar, R. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 207–210 (2002).
Google Scholar
Chou, T.-C. Drug combination studies and their synergy quantification using the Chou-Talalay Method. Cancer Res. 70, 440–446 (2010).
Google Scholar
Narahari, Y. Game Theory and Mechanism Design Vol. 4 (World Scientific, 2014).
Szklarczyk, D. et al. STRING v11: protein–protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D607–D613 (2019).
Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hagberg, A., Swart, P. & S Chult, D. Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function Using NetworkX (US Department of Energy, 2008).
