Comparison of Approaches for Determining Bioactivity Hits from High-Dimensional Profiling Data

Phenotypic profiling assays are untargeted screening assays that measure a large number (hundreds to thousands) of cellular features in response to a stimulus and often yield diverse and unanticipated profiles of phenotypic effects, leading to challenges in distinguishing active from inactive treatments. Here, we compare a variety of different strategies for hit identification in imaging-based phenotypic profiling assays using a previously published Cell Painting data set. Hit identification strategies based on multiconcentration analysis involve curve fitting at several levels of data aggregation (e.g., individual feature level, aggregation of similarly derived features into categories, and global modeling of all features) and on computed metrics (e.g., Euclidean and Mahalanobis distance metrics and eigenfeatures). Hit identification strategies based on single-concentration analysis included measurement of signal strength (e.g., total effect magnitude) and correlation of profiles among biological replicates. Modeling parameters for each approach were optimized to retain the ability to detect a reference chemical with subtle phenotypic effects while limiting the false-positive rate to 10%. The percentage of test chemicals identified as hits was highest for feature-level and category-based approaches, followed by global fitting, whereas signal strength and profile correlation approaches detected the fewest number of active hits at the fixed false-positive rate. Approaches involving fitting of distance metrics had the lowest likelihood for identifying high-potency false-positive hits that may be associated with assay noise. Most of the methods achieved a 100% hit rate for the reference chemical and high concordance for 82% of test chemicals, indicating that hit calls are robust across different analysis approaches.