We perform an analysis in response to the following reviewer comment:
Reviewer 3 - Major Comment 1:
While the claims are largely substantiated, there are a few points where further consideration would improve the manuscript. Several cell lines were mis-classified with what appears to be a high degree of certainty. Can the authors tell what was driving those predictions? Was there something in the morphological signature that weighed more heavily in those cases?
We explore the morphological signature in cases in which either resistant or wildtype samples were calculated incorrectly and learn that, in general, most of the signature is disrupted, and this disruption is not consistent between resistant samples or wildtype samples being misclassified.
We also note that these incorrect classifications happened consistently in only 3 samples.
We perform an analysis in response to the following reviewer comment:
We explore the morphological signature in cases in which either resistant or wildtype samples were calculated incorrectly and learn that, in general, most of the signature is disrupted, and this disruption is not consistent between resistant samples or wildtype samples being misclassified.
We also note that these incorrect classifications happened consistently in only 3 samples.