arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 0905.0991q-bio.QMq-bio.MN
收藏

基于模块和直接方法的转录调控网络逆向工程比较分析

Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks

Tom Michoel, Riet De Smet, Anagha Joshi, Yves Van de Peer, Kathleen Marchal

摘要:

我们利用大肠杆菌和酿酒酵母的基准表达数据和已知转录调控相互作用数据库,比较了最近开发的用于反向工程转录调控网络的基于模块的算法LeMoNe和基于互信息的直接算法CLR。使用查全率对查准率曲线的全局比较隐藏了推断网络的拓扑上的不同性质,并且没有提供关于每种方法最适合的特定子任务的信息。度分布分析和调节器特定比较表明,CLR是“以调节器为中心”的,可对更多调节器进行真实预测,而LeMoNe是“以目标为中心”的,可对更少调节器恢复更多已知目标,两种方法之间的预测相互作用重叠有限。详细的生物学例子在E. coli和革兰氏阳性菌S.并证明每种方法都能够推断出另一种方法失败的网络部分。推断网络的生物学验证警告不要过度解释使用不完整参考网络计算的召回率和精确度值。

英文摘要:

We have compared a recently developed module-based algorithm LeMoNe for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks to a mutual information based direct algorithm CLR, using benchmark expression data and databases of known transcriptional regulatory interactions for Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A global comparison using recall versus precision curves hides the topologically distinct nature of the inferred networks and is not informative about the specific subtasks for which each method is most suited. Analysis of the degree distributions and a regulator specific comparison show that CLR is 'regulator-centric', making true predictions for a higher number of regulators, while LeMoNe is 'target-centric', recovering a higher number of known targets for fewer regulators, with limited overlap in the predicted interactions between both methods. Detailed biological examples in E. coli and S. cerevisiae are used to illustrate these differences and to prove that each method is able to infer parts of the network where the other fails. Biological validation of the inferred networks cautions against over-interpreting recall and precision values computed using incomplete reference networks.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑