THEORETICAL STUDIES ON THE METHODS OF RECONSTRUCTING PHYLOGENETIC TREES FROM DNA SEQUENCE DATA (MOLECULAR EVOLUTION, HOMINOID EVOLUTION, COMPUTER SIMULATION)

(1) A mathematical theory for computing the probabilities of various nucleotide configurations is developed, and the probability of obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree (model tree) from sequence data is evaluated for six phylogenetic tree-making methods (UPGMA, distance Wagner method, transformed distance method, Fitch-Margoliash's method, maximum parsimony method, and compatibility method). The number of nucleotides (m*) necessary to obtain the correct tree with a probability of 95% is estimated with special reference to the human, chimpanzee, and gorilla divergence. m* is at least 4,200, but the availability of outgroup species greatly reduces m* for all methods except UPGMA. m* increases if transitions occur more frequently than transversions as in the case of mitochondrial DNA. (2) A new tree-making method called the neighbor-joining method is proposed. This method is applicable either for distance data or character state data. Computer simulation has shown that the neighbor-joining method is generally better than UPGMA, Farris' method, Li's method, and modified Farris method on recovering the true topology when distance data are used. A related method, the simultaneous partitioning method, is also discussed. (3) The maximum likelihood (ML) method for phylogeny reconstruction under the assumption of both constant and varying evolutionary rates is studied, and a new algorithm for obtaining the ML tree is presented. This method gives a tree similar to that obtained by UPGMA when constant evolutionary rate is assumed, whereas it gives a tree similar to that obtained by the maximum parsimony tree and the neighbor-joining method when varying evolutionary rate is assumed. ^

New algorithms for automated phylogenetic reconstruction using artificial intelligence and data mining techniques

Academic and industrial research in the late 90s have brought about an exponential explosion of DNA sequence data. Automated expert systems are being created to help biologists to extract patterns, trends and links from this ever-deepening ocean of information. Two such systems aimed on retrieving and subsequently utilizing phylogenetically relevant information have been developed in this dissertation, the major objective of which was to automate the often difficult and confusing phylogenetic reconstruction process. ^ Popular phylogenetic reconstruction methods, such as distance-based methods, attempt to find an optimal tree topology (that reflects the relationships among related sequences and their evolutionary history) by searching through the topology space. Various compromises between the fast (but incomplete) and exhaustive (but computationally prohibitive) search heuristics have been suggested. An intelligent compromise algorithm that relies on a flexible “beam” search principle from the Artificial Intelligence domain and uses the pre-computed local topology reliability information to adjust the beam search space continuously is described in the second chapter of this dissertation. ^ However, sometimes even a (virtually) complete distance-based method is inferior to the significantly more elaborate (and computationally expensive) maximum likelihood (ML) method. In fact, depending on the nature of the sequence data in question either method might prove to be superior. Therefore, it is difficult (even for an expert) to tell a priori which phylogenetic reconstruction method—distance-based, ML or maybe maximum parsimony (MP)—should be chosen for any particular data set. ^ A number of factors, often hidden, influence the performance of a method. For example, it is generally understood that for a phylogenetically “difficult” data set more sophisticated methods (e.g., ML) tend to be more effective and thus should be chosen. However, it is the interplay of many factors that one needs to consider in order to avoid choosing an inferior method (potentially a costly mistake, both in terms of computational expenses and in terms of reconstruction accuracy.) ^ Chapter III of this dissertation details a phylogenetic reconstruction expert system that selects a superior proper method automatically. It uses a classifier (a Decision Tree-inducing algorithm) to map a new data set to the proper phylogenetic reconstruction method. ^

Thoracic target volume delineation using various maximum-intensity projection computed tomography image sets for stereotactic body radiation therapy

The motion of lung tumors during respiration makes the accurate delivery of radiation therapy to the thorax difficult because it increases the uncertainty of target position. The adoption of four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) has allowed us to determine how a tumor moves with respiration for each individual patient. Using information acquired during a 4D-CT scan, we can define the target, visualize motion, and calculate dose during the planning phase of the radiotherapy process. One image data set that can be created from the 4D-CT acquisition is the maximum-intensity projection (MIP). The MIP can be used as a starting point to define the volume that encompasses the motion envelope of the moving gross target volume (GTV). Because of the close relationship that exists between the MIP and the final target volume, we investigated four MIP data sets created with different methodologies (3 using various 4D-CT sorting implementations, and one using all available cine CT images) to compare target delineation. It has been observed that changing the 4D-CT sorting method will lead to the selection of a different collection of images; however, the clinical implications of changing the constituent images on the resultant MIP data set are not clear. There has not been a comprehensive study that compares target delineation based on different 4D-CT sorting methodologies in a patient population. We selected a collection of patients who had previously undergone thoracic 4D-CT scans at our institution, and who had lung tumors that moved at least 1 cm. We then generated the four MIP data sets and automatically contoured the target volumes. In doing so, we identified cases in which the MIP generated from a 4D-CT sorting process under-represented the motion envelope of the target volume by more than 10% than when measured on the MIP generated from all of the cine CT images. The 4D-CT methods suffered from duplicate image selection and might not choose maximum extent images. Based on our results, we suggest utilization of a MIP generated from the full cine CT data set to ensure a representative inclusive tumor extent, and to avoid geometric miss.

An Innovative Phase I Trial Design Allowing for the Identification of Multiple Potential Maximum Tolerated Doses with Combination Therapy of Targeted Agents

Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.