Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français |

**|**PLoS One**|**v.5(10); 2010**|**PMC2956629

Formats

Article sections

Authors

Related links

PLoS One. 2010; 5(10): e13055.

Published online 2010 October 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013055

PMCID: PMC2956629

Drew Mellor,^{1,}^{2} Elena Prieto,^{1,}^{2} Luke Mathieson,^{1,}^{2} and Pablo Moscato^{1,}^{2,}^{*}

Maria A. Deli, Editor^{}

Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

* E-mail: ua.ude.eltsacwen@otacsom.olbap

Conceived and designed the experiments: DM LM PM. Performed the experiments: DM LM PM. Analyzed the data: LM PM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DM EP LM PM. Wrote the paper: DM EP LM PM.

Received 2010 June 15; Accepted 2010 August 19.

Copyright Mellor et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Therapies consisting of a combination of agents are an attractive proposition,
especially in the context of diseases such as cancer, which can manifest with a
variety of tumor types in a single case. However uncovering usable drug
combinations is expensive both financially and temporally. By employing
computational methods to identify candidate combinations with a greater
likelihood of success we can avoid these problems, even when the amount of data
is prohibitively large. Hitting Set is a combinatorial problem
that has useful application across many fields, however as it is
*NP*-complete it is traditionally considered hard to solve
exactly. We introduce a more general version of the problem
(*α,β,d*)-Hitting Set,
which allows more precise control over how and what the hitting set targets.
Employing the framework of Parameterized Complexity we show that despite being
*NP*-complete, the
(*α,β,d*)-Hitting Set
problem is fixed-parameter tractable with a kernel of size *O*(α*dk ^{d}*) when we parameterize by the size

Typically the selection of a drug therapy for a disease is limited to a single drug, however diseases such as cancer may present as a heterogeneous mix of subtypes of the general disease. In cases such as these multi-drug therapies may prove more effective than single drug therapies, and many trials have been conducted to this end [1]–[3]. Furthermore combinations of drugs may allow a more targeted approach for a selection of subtypes of a disease, while minimizing effects on unaffected cells. Unfortunately with the abundance of compounds available for the treatment of many conditions of interest, the time and expense in testing even all two drug combinations may be prohibitive. Therefore a smarter approach is needed. Vazquez [4] introduces the Hitting Set problem for this task in the context of oncological drug therapy. The Hitting Set problem is a combinatorial problem that proves extremely useful in modeling a large variety of problems in many domains including protein network discovery [5], metabolic network analysis [6], diagnostics [7]–[9], gene ontology [10] and gene expression analysis [11], [12].

Hitting Set is a combinatorial problem that models the problem of selecting a small group of elements to represent or cover a collection of sets. Such a group that covers every set in the collection is called a hitting set. Finding such a set without any constraint is simple, however if we required that the size of the hitting set be relatively small, the problem becomes computationally challenging (-complete in a formal sense). This difficulty in obtaining solutions with desirable qualities thus requires more thoughtful approaches.

We now give some technical details and formal definitions of the problems of interest.

Hitting Set is equivalent to the Set Cover problem [13], and when otherwise unrestricted, is equivalent to the Red/Blue Dominating Set [14] problem and is related to the -Feature Set [15] problem.

The decision version of the Hitting Set problem is defined as follows:

Hitting Set

Instance:A set and a collection and an integer .

Question:Is there a set with such that for every we have ?

The set is called a *hitting set for*
, or simply a *hitting set*. For an element and an element if we say that
*hits*
. This problem is -complete even when the maximum size of each element of is two (by equivalence with Vertex Cover
[13])
and -complete for parameter ; Cotta and Moscato [16] give a parameterized
proof via -Feature Set and Paz and Moran [17] give a
proof which along with the equivalence of Hitting Set and
Set Cover leads to the same result, though predates the
parameterized complexity framework. However if we restrict the cardinality of
the elements of to the problem, while remaining -complete, becomes fixed-parameter tractable where is a constant and the parameter is
[18]. In this case the problem is known as the
Hitting Set for Sets of Size
or -Hitting Set problem. We note that
Hitting Set has several equivalent formulations, in
particular we choose to use the bipartite graph representation where and form the two partite vertex sets of the graph and an edge corresponds to the element being an element of . This allows us to employ some simplifying graph theoretic
terminology and techniques. We generalize this problem to include the case where
we may want the elements of to be hit more than once. In particular this includes the case
where we ask if all the sets of can be hit times, but extends to the case where the elements of can be hit up to times. We encode this by the use of a hitting function . Our problem then becomes the -Multiple
-Hitting Set (or ()-Hitting Set):

-Hitting Set

Instance:A bipartite graph where for all we have , a hitting function and an integer .

Question:Is there a set with such that for every we have ?

When for all , ()-Hitting Set can be -approximated in time [19], but cannot be approximated with a factor of for any unless [20].

As we prove in the *Materials and Methods* section, the ()-Hitting Set problem is fixed-parameter
tractable, and indeed a more general variant the ()-Hitting Set problem is also fixed parameter
tractable when we take the maximum degree of the class vertices as a constant and the size of the hitting set and the maximum desired coverage as a joint parameter. Though the problem is formally hard -
which would normally give the intuition that an exact solution would be too
expensive to compute - the fixed-parameter tractability indicates that it is
likely that we can obtain an exact solution efficiently. Armed with this
knowledge we proceed with the experiments of the following section, where we use
the drug response data of the NCI60 anti-tumor drug screening program to
determine a sets of drugs that hit cancerous cell lines multiple times. These
drug sets are than mathematically supportable candidates for combination
chemotherapies. Moreover we are able to tune the nature of the hitting sets via
the numbers , and , which allows us to control which cell lines are targetted
(and which are specifically not) and how much each cell line is hit in the
solution.

The NCI60 human tumor anti-cancer drug screen dataset [21] was established in the 1980s as an enabling tool for anti-cancer drug development. Included in this dataset is response data for over drugs against the cell lines of the dataset. Vazquez [4] highlights the utility of a hitting set approach in developing multi-drug therapies for heterogeneous malignancies; given the plethora of available compounds, testing multi-drug combinations exhaustively is prohibitive if not impossible. Applying hitting set to efficacy data measured on an individual basis for each compound allows us to determine possible drug combinations that would provide the best chance of efficacy against many cancer types. Using the GI50 response NCI60 dataset (available from the DTP website [22]) Vazquez uncovers a minimum hitting set with three compounds that cumulatively gives a good response with all cell lines in the dataset, where a response is considered good if it is more than two standard deviations above the mean of the z-transformed response data. Vazquez uses first a greedy highest-degree-first approach to give an estimate of the maximum size of a minimum hitting set, followed by either an exhaustive search or simulated annealing, depending on the size of the hitting set. Vazquez reports times for such approaches on the order of one day on a desktop computer.

We revisit Vasquez's experiment, using data reduction (though it is not necessary to employ the more complex rules given in the kernelization proof) with IBM ILOG CPLEX [23] as the kernel solver by framing the problem as a integer programming problem. We use the same threshold for the z-transformation to identify significant response levels. Using this approach we reduce the time to solve the instance to less than seconds, where most of the time is spent loading and reducing the data, with CPLEX solving the integer programming instance in approximately milliseconds. Furthermore this approach guarantees optimality in the size of the hitting set.

From here we employ more a more recent version of the NCI60 dataset (2009 as
compared to Vazquez's 2006). At the time of writing, the latest NCI60
dataset includes 14 additional cell lines, however we remove these, as there is
insufficient response data in the dataset, leading to inflated hitting set
sizes. The latest data also includes a further compounds. We note that employing the new GI50 response data
we are able to uncover element hitting sets involving compounds not available in the
earlier dataset (an example is given in Table 1 and Figure 1), in particular Everolimus (NSC
733504) a drug now used for the treatment of advanced renal cancer which is also
giving positive results in phase II trials for metastatic melanoma [24], [25].
However there have recently been some concerns over the provenance of some of
the cell lines in the NCI60 dataset. In particular Lorenzi *et al.*
[26]
suggested that the MDA-N cell line, nominally a breast cancer cell line is in
fact similar the M14 and MDA-MB-435 cell lines, and thus should be is in fact a
melanoma cell line. Chambers [27] however suggests that although M14 and
MDA-MB-435 are identical cell lines, they may not in fact be melanoma cell
lines. We do not attempt to resolve this dispute, however with regard to this,
and as a indication of the flexibility of the method we employ we consider both
the case where MDA-N is a breast cancer cell line and the the case where MDA-N
is a melanoma cell line.

Employing the ()-Hitting Set model gives more flexibility in
what kind of therapy we would like to pursue. For instance, by choosing for all vertices, we are able to find a hitting set that hits
every cell line at least twice (see Table 2). However the size of this hitting
set is , which is likely to be beyond the point where the trade off
between anti-cancer efficacy and side effects is acceptable. Fortunately we can
exploit ()-Hitting Set more intelligently. For example
we may wish to find a hitting set that specifically targets breast cancer cell
lines – for which we set all breast cancer cell line vertices to have and all other cell lines to have . This gives a hitting set that hits *only*
breast cancer cell lines, which may be useful in minimizing unwanted peripheral
damage to non-breast cancer cells. This gives a hitting set with three elements.
In the case where we considered MDA-N to be a breast cancer cell line (see Table 3 and Figure 2) this set includes
the compound deoxypodophyllotoxin, which is known to induce apoptosis [28]. If
we consider MDA-N as a melanoma cell line we obtain a different hitting set (see
Table 4 and Figure 3). If we relax our
requirements an allow other cell lines to be hit at most once we can obtain a
hitting set that hits the breast cancer cell lines more (Table 5 and Figure 4). The results when we set to for all breast cancer lines are given in Table 6 and Figure 5 (including MDA-N) and
Table 7 and Figure 6 (excluding MDA-N). We
note particularly that in the case where MDA-N is included, the optimal hitting
set uncovered includes Docetaxel, a well known anti-cancer agent [29] for several cancer types including breast cancer.
Interestingly Docetaxel is also currently included in several clinical trials
examining its potential as part of a multi-drug therapy [30]–[34].

In another example, we may wish to target melanoma cell lines exclusively, and furthermore, we may wish to attack each cell line with at least two drugs at once. However in this case (where for melanoma cell lines and for all others) the minimal hitting set size is (or if MDA-N is included as a melanoma cell line – Table 8 and Figures 7 & 8). Considering that a therapeutic cocktail involving compounds may have excessive side effects, we can relax the requirements, and allow for non-melanoma cell lines. In this case we find that the smallest hitting set is of size . By altering the focus when solving the kernel by fixing the hitting set size () at and maximizing the total degree of the vertices in the hitting set, subject to the and constraints, we can obtain the minimal size hitting set that hits our targets as much as possible, within the bounds given by the constraints. This results in the hitting sets in Tables 9 & 10 and Figures 9 & 10. Of note is AZD6244, which is currently involved in anti-cancer drug trials [35] and has been identified as a potent kinase inhibitor [36], [37].

Given the size of modern datasets, and the expectation that they will only get larger, it is clear that we require efficient approaches to solving important computational biology problems. The first phase of any such approach is simply defining the problem at hand. Unfortunately once clearly stated, many such problems are -hard or worse. However this need not mean that we must resort to inexact or approximate approaches, which could be undesirable in a field such as drug selection. Parameterized Complexity provides a toolkit for dealing with nominally hard problems, and identifying cases where despite super-polynomial running times, we may still expect good performance.

The drug selection problem as examined here is one such problem. It is modeled well by the -Hitting Set problem, which is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by the maximum size of the hitting set. Therefore we can expect that despite being -complete, it would be relatively quick to solve when these parameters are small. However we demonstrate that the much more flexible variant ()-Hitting Set is also fixed-parameter tractable, with only the addition of a single parameter - the maximum of the minimum number of times any vertex should be hit. With ()-Hitting Set we are able to better control the nature of the hitting set uncovered, and thus tailor any such hitting set to a useful set of constraints, such as limits on which cell lines are to be hit, the maximum any of these can be hit and of course the minimum number of times any cell line should be hit. Moreover we can solve this problem quickly, and guarantee optimality - without any notable restrictions on the parameters and constants. This allows the quick generation of possible drug combinations for testing, with guarantees of a certain baseline performance, eliminating the need to exhaustively test all possible combinations, which would be financially and temporally prohibitive.

In brief this paper provides a robust and flexible methodology for multiple drug selection, which can easily be applied to other domains that are modeled by the -Hitting Set problem, with a sound theoretical background as to why and how the problem can be solved efficiently, despite its -completeness. Moreover the existence of a kernelization for ()-Hitting Set indicates that even without using a specialized commercial solver such as CPLEX, the problem is readily scalable to large datasets. Given the speed at which we are able to solve instances with on the order of vertices, we can expect that much larger datasets are also solvable in a reasonable time.

A future extension that may be of interest would be to somehow encode in the problem the notion that some hitting vertices are incompatible, e.g., two compound may have severe adverse interactions, and thus can never be used together as a therapy, regardless of their individual usefulness.

The dataset primarily employed is the NCI60 DTP Human Tumor Cell Line Screen, available from [22]. We use the version released in October 2009, and downloaded in April 2010. The raw dataset is presented as a series of cell line and compound pairs, along with the GI50 response measurement (the method for producing the measurements is also detailed by [22]) for that pair plus concentration information and statistical information. Where there are multiple entries for the same compound-cell line pair, we select the entry resulting from the experiment using the highest concentration of the compound. We extract this data into a matrix cross indexed by the NSC number of the compound and the name of the cell line. Where an entry does not exist for a given compound-cell line pair, we enter “NA” for that entry in the matrix.

Once the data is in this matrix format we threshold the data according to the method used by Vazquez [4] whereby the raw data is subject to a z-transformation over a logarithmic scale and then any value above a certain threshold expressed in terms of the standard deviation to , and anything below, including “NA” values, to . In line with Vazquez we choose two standard deviations as our particular threshold for this paper, though this is adjustable.

We then construct a graph for the hitting set instance using the Java Universal Network/Graph Framework (JUNG) [38] with the SetHypergraph class, representing each compound with a vertex and each cell line with a (hyper)edge which carries a weight indicating the number of times that edge is to be hit. This graph is then reduced to remove vertices of zero degree, edges with no incident vertices (which are noted as technically this would indicate a no instance unless that edge does not require hitting) and vertices that are only adjacent to edges that require zero hits. This basic reduction alone typically reduces the number of vertices significantly, bringing the graph within a reasonable size for immediate processing. From a theoretical standpoint the constant is of importance, for the graph constructed as stated, (as we allow the natural value, rather than imposing an external limit). In practice a value of this magnitude proves perfectly workable, and returning to the theoretical viewpoint indicates that the instance is in a sense already kernelized.

Once the graph is reduced, we construct an integer programming instance equivalent of the problem given the graph, and pass this instance to CPLEX [23] (version 11.200) and search for an optimal solution to one of two objective functions, given the constraints of the number of hits for each cell line (given by the value). The first objective function simply minimizes the size of the hitting set (), for the second objective function we fix the size of the hitting set, and maximize the number of hits on vertices where no maximum number of hits has been set (the value). As part of this search CPLEX may apply some unspecified proprietary reduction process.

The figures were created using yEd Graph Editor [39].

The computer hardware employed is a Dell PowerEdge III Dual Xeon 5550 server with 32Gb of RAM, operating Red Hat Linux 64 bit EL 4 Server.

A *(simple undirected) graph* consists of a set (the vertices), and a set of two element subsets of (the edges). A *bipartite graph* is a graph
where the vertices are partitioned into two partite sets, where all edges
have one endpoint in one set and the other endpoint in the other set, i.e., and .

Given a graph and two vertices , we denote the edge between and by or equivalently . Given two vertices in , if there is an edge we say that and are *adjacent* and the and are *incident* on . Given a vertex , the set is the *(open) neighborhood* of and consists off all vertices adjacent to in , we extend this notion in the natural way to sets of
vertices.

A *parameterized (decision) problem* is a formally defined
computational problem consisting of three components; the input, a special
part of the input called the parameter, and the question. Following Flum and
Grohe's [40] definition we may assume that the
parameter is derived from a polynomial time computable mapping from the
input to the natural numbers. A parameterized problem is *fixed-parameter tractable* if there is
an algorithm such that for every instance where is the input, is the parameter and , correctly answers Yes or No in time
bounded by where is a polynomial and is a computable function.

A *polynomial time kernelization* (or just
*kernelization*) is a polynomial time mapping that given
an instance of a parameterized problem produces a new instance of the problem such that:

- is a Yes-instance if and only if is a Yes-instance,
- and
- for some computable function .

It is easy to see that if a problem has kernelization, then it is fixed-parameter tractable. It is also easy to prove that if a problem is fixed-parameter tractable, then it has a kernelization [41].

Parameterized complexity has a fully developed theory for determining when a problem is unlikely to be fixed-parameter tractable, but as this is not necessary for this work, we refer the reader to the monographs of Flum and Grohe [40] and Downey and Fellows [42] for full discussion, and simply state that if a problem is -hard or -complete for any , then the problem is not fixed-parameter tractable unless certain complexity theoretic assumptions are false, which seems unlikely.

Our kernelization for ()-Hitting Set follows the basic format of Abu-Khzam's kernelization for -Hitting Set [18].

Let be an instance of ()-Hitting Set which we assume to have been preprocessed for nonsense input such as vertices with or . Therefore we may assume that for all we have and that for all vertices we have .

We first apply Reduction Rules 1 to 3 exhaustively, before applying Rules 4 and 5.:

**Reduction Rule 1:** If there is a vertex with then for every vertex for every vertex reduce by , delete from and reduce by . Finally, delete from .

**Lemma 1**
*Reduction Rule 1 is sound*.

*Proof*. If such a vertex exists, then all its neighbors in must be in the hitting set, and we can remove them from the
graph after suitably noting the effect for the vertices of .

Note in particular that this rule effectively allows us to assume that is at most . This will be used implicitly in Reduction Rule 4.

**Reduction Rule 2:** If there is a vertex with , delete from .

**Lemma 2**
*Reduction Rule 2 is sound*.

*Proof*. Clearly requires no vertices to hit it, so may be ignored.

**Reduction Rule 3:** If there are two vertices such that and , delete from .

**Lemma 3**
*Reduction Rule 3 is sound*.

*Proof*. If two such vertices and exist, then any hitting set that hits at least times will hit at least times.

Let be a set of size vertices such that is the pairwise intersection of the neighborhoods of a vertex set . Let .

**Reduction Rule 4:** Let and be vertex sets as described. For each such that add a vertex to with and edges such that and delete from .

**Lemma 4**
*Reduction Rule 4 is sound*.

*Proof*. Let be a Yes-instance of ()-Hitting Set. Then there is a set with that hits each element of at least times. Assume that there are sets and as described in the reduction rule and that for some we have that . Let be the subset of that hits . Assume further that , then for each there is at least one other vertex in , but then , which contradicts the assumption that is a Yes-instance.

Therefore the set must be hit by , so we may restrict our search to the intersection.

**Lemma 5**
*Reduction Rule 4 can be computed in polynomial time*.

*Proof*. Given a set of vertices for some with , we construct an auxiliary graph by taking for each the subgraph of induced by the vertices . If there is a maximum matching in of size greater than , then the matched vertices from form the required set with pairwise neighbohood intersection .

As is a constant, we can iterate over all sets of vertices of size in time . The matchings can be computed in time .

**Definition 6 (Weakly Related Vertices)** Given two vertices , and are *weakly related* if , and both and .

Let be a maximal set of pairwise weakly related vertices. Let be a set of vertices, and denote by the set of vertices of whose neighborhood is a superset of . Further denote by the subset of where for each we have .

**Reduction Rule 5:** Compute a maximal collection of pairwise weakly related vertices. If apply the following algorithm:

**for**
**downto**
**do**

**for**
**downto**
**do**

**for** each set where and
**do**

**if**
**then**

Add a vertex to , edges such that and set .

Delete from .

**Lemma 7**
*Reduction Rule 5 is sound*.

*Proof*. We defer the proof of the bound on the size of until the proof of Lemma 8.

Let be a Yes-instance of ()-Hitting Set. Then there is a set that hits sufficiently. For sets of size , Reduction Rule 4 proves the soundness of the first iteration of the outer loop.

For each other iteration, assume that the iteration for sets of size holds, then let be set of size where for some . If then by the pigeon hole principle there is some vertex that is in at least neighborhoods of vertices in , but then is a set that is the intersection of at least neighborhoods of vertices in some subset of , contradicting the correctness of the previous iteration. Therefore the entire set of vertices hitting each vertex is contained within if , so we may replace with a single vertex.

Note also that for each element of there is at most sets , so we may iterate through all sets in time , so we can perform the replacements in polynomial time.

**Lemma 8**
*If ** is a* Yes-*instance
of* ()-Hitting Set, *reduced under
Reduction Rules 1 to 5*, *then *.

*Proof*. If is a Yes-instance of ()-Hitting Set, then there is a set such that for every we have with .

**Claim 9**
.

By construction, every vertex in with degree at most is in . Assume there is some with and , then there must be some vertex such that , but then as the degree of any vertex in is at most , , and Reduction Rule 3 would apply. Therefore there are no vertices from not in .

**Claim 10**
.

As hits each vertex of at least once, by Reduction Rule 5 each element of as a singleton is in the neighborhood of at most vertices from . Therefore .

Combining Claims 9 and 10 we have . As each vertex of has degree at most , there are at most vertices in , and the bound follows.

**Theorem 11** ()-Hitting Set
*is fixed-parameter tractable with parameter ** and has a kernel of size at most *.

We note that although must be a constant to obtain a polynomial time kernelization, may be alternatively given as an additional parameter, without change to the kernelization.

This kernelization may be extended to an even more general version of the problem, where we not only specify lower bounds for the number of hits, but also upper bounds:

-Hitting Set

Instance:A bipartite graph where for all we have , two hitting functions and and an integer .

Question:Is there a set with such that for every we have ?

**Corollary 12** ()-Hitting Set
*is fixed-parameter tractable with parameter ** and has a kernel of size at most *.

**Competing Interests: **The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

**Funding: **The authors acknowledge the support of the Hunter Medical Research Institute, The
University of Newcastle, and ARC Discovery Project DP0773279 (Application of
novel exact combinatorial optimisation techniques and metaheuristic methods for
problems in cancer research). The funders had no role in study design, data
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.

1. Albain KS, Crowley JJ, LeBlanc M, Livingston RB. Determinants of improved outcome in small-cell lung cancer: an
analysis of the 2,580-patient southwest oncology group data base. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1990;8:1563–1574. [PubMed]

2. Flamant F, Schwartz L, Delons E, Caillaud JM, Hartmann O, et al. Nonseminomatous malignant germ cell tumors in children. Multidrug
therapy in stages III and IV. Cancer. 1984;54:1687–1691. [PubMed]

3. Fu KK, Silverberg IJ, Phillips TL, Friedman MA. Combined radiotherapy and multidrug chemotherapy for advanced
head and neck cancer: results of a radiation therapy oncology group pilot
study. Cancer Treatment Reports. 1979;63:351–357. [PubMed]

4. Vazquez A. Optimal drug combinations and minimal hitting sets. BMC Systems Biology. 2009;3:81–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

5. Berman P, DasGupta B, Sontag ED. Randomized approximation algorithms for set multicover problems
with applications to reverse engineering of protein and gene networks. Discrete Applied Mathematics. 2007;155:733–749.

6. Haus UU, Klamt S, Stephen T. Computing knock-out strategies in metabolic networks. Journal of Computational Biology. 2008;15:259–268. [PubMed]

7. de Kleer J, Mackworth AK, Reiter R. Characterizing diagnoses and systems. Artificial Intelligence. 1992;56:197–222.

8. Leipins GE, Potter WD. A genetic algorithm approach to multiple-fault diagnosis. In: Davis L, editor. Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company; 1991. pp. 237–250.

9. Reiter R. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence. 1987;32:57–95.

10. Hvidsten TR, Lægreid A, Komorowski HJ. Learning rule-based models of biological process from gene
expression time profiles using gene ontology. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1116–1123. [PubMed]

11. Ruchkys D, Song S. A parallel approximation hitting set algorithm for gene
expression analysis. 2002. pp. 75–81. In: 14th Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance
Computing (SBAC-PAD 2002). Vitoria, Espirito Santo, Brazil.

12. Vinterbo SA, Kim EY, Ohno-Machado L. Small, fuzzy and interpretable gene expression based classifiers. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:1964–1970. [PubMed]

13. Garey MR, Johnson DS. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co; 1979.

14. Fernau H. Parameterized Algorithmics: A Graph-Theoretic Approach. Germany: Habilitationsschrift, Universität
Tübingen; 2005.

15. Davies S, Russell S. NP-completeness of searches for smallest possible feature sets. In: Greiner R, Subramanian D, editors. AAAI Symposium on Intelligent Relevance. New Orleans: 1994. pp. 41–43.

16. Cotta C, Moscato P. The *k*-feature set problem is
W[2]-complete. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. 2003;67:686–690.

17. Paz A, Moran S. Non deterministic polynomial optimization problems and their
approximations. Theoretical Computer Science. 1981;15:251–277.

18. Abu-Khzam FN. A kernelization algorithm for d-hitting set. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences. 2010;76:524–531.

19. Vazirani V. Approximation Algorithms. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2001.

20. Feige U. A threshold of ln *n* for approximating set cover. Journal of the ACM. 1998;45:634–652.

21. Shoemaker RH. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2006;6:813–823. [PubMed]

22. NCI/NIH Website (Accessed 2010). Developmental Theraputics Program. http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/

23. IBM Website (Accessed 2010). ILOG CPLEX. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/optimization/cplex/

24. Rao RD, Windschitl HE, Allred JB, Lowe VJ, Maples WJ, et al. Phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD-001) in
metastatic melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006;24:8043.

25. Peyton JD, Spigel DR, Burris HA, Lane C, Rubin M, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab and everolimus in the treatment of
patients with metastatic melanoma: Preliminary results. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27:9027.

26. Lorenzi PL, Reinhold WC, Varma S, Hutchinson AA, Pommier Y, et al. DNA fingerprinting of the NCI-60 cell line panel. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 2009;8:713–724. [PubMed]

27. Chambers AF. MDA-MB-435 and M14 cell lines: Identical but not M14 melanoma? Cancer Research. 2009;69:5292–5293. [PubMed]

28. Shin SY, Yong Y, Kim CG, Lee YH, Lim Y. Deoxypodophyllotoxin induces G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis
in HeLa cells. Cancer Letters. 2010;287:231–239. [PubMed]

29. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Fenton C. Docetaxel: A review of its use in metastatic breast cancer. Drugs. 2005;65:2513–2531. [PubMed]

30. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and
cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC-¿T) with doxorubicin
and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab
(AC-¿TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in
Her2neu positive early breast cancer patients: BCIRG 006 study. Cancer Research. 2009;69:62.

31. Perez EA, Hillman DW, Dentchev T, Le-Lindqwister NA, Geeraerts LH, et al. North central cancer treatment group (NCCTG) N0432: phase II
trial of docetaxel with capecitabine and bevacizumab as first-line
chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2010;21:269–274. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

32. Polyzos A, Malamos N, Boukovinas I, Adamou A, Ziras N, et al. FEC versus sequential docetaxel followed by
epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with axillary
node-positive early breast cancer: a randomized study of the Hellenic
Oncology Research Group (HORG). Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2010;119:95–104. [PubMed]

33. Joensuu H, Bono P, Kataja V, Alanko T, Kokko R, et al. Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide With Either
Docetaxel or Vinorelbine, With or Without Trastuzumab, As Adjuvant
Treatments of Breast Cancer: Final Results of the FinHer Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27:5685–5692. [PubMed]

34. Sparano JA, Makhson AN, Semiglazov VF, Tjulandin SA, Balashova OI, et al. Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Plus Docetaxel Significantly
Improves Time to Progression Without Additive Cardiotoxicity Compared With
Docetaxel Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer Previously
Treated With Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Anthracycline Therapy: Results From a
Randomized Phase III Study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4522–4529. [PubMed]

35. ClinicalTrialsgov Website (Accessed 2010). U.S. clinical trial registry. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.

36. Davies B, Logie A, McKay JS, Martin P, Steele S, et al. AZD6244 (ARRY-142886), a potent inhibitor of mitogen-activated
protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase 1/2 kinases:
mechanism of action in vivo, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship,
and potential for combination in preclinical models. Molecular Cancer Theraputics. 2007;6:2209–2219. [PubMed]

37. Yeh TC, Marsh V, Bernat BA, Ballard J, Colwell H, et al. Biological characterization of ARRY-142886 (AZD6244), a potent,
highly selective mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor. Clinical Cancer Research. 2007;13:1576. [PubMed]

38. Java Universal Network/Graph Framework Website (Accessed 2010). JUNG. http://jung.sourceforge.net/

39. yWorks Website (Accessed 2010). yEd. http://www.yworks.com/en/products_yed_about.html.

40. Flum J, Grohe M. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Berlin: Springer; 2006.

41. Niedermeier R. Invitation to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

42. Downey RG, Fellows MR. Parameterized Complexity. Berlin: Springer; 1999.

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of **Public Library of Science**

PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers. |