arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1008.3166q-bio.MNcond-mat.dis-nnphysics.soc-ph
收藏

基于网络的基因组尺度代谢重建置信度评分系统

Network-based confidence scoring system for genome-scale metabolic reconstructions

M. Ángeles Serrano, Francesc Sagués

摘要:

复杂生物网络重建的可靠性仍然是一个问题。虽然观测结果越来越精确,但数据收集过程仍容易出错,证据显示出不一致的确定性。在代谢网络的情况下,目前采用的置信度评分系统根据表示不同水平的实验证据或基于模型的可能性的离散化的小标签集对反应进行评级。在这里,我们提出了一个基于计算网络的反应评分系统,利用复杂的层次结构和统计的代谢网络作为一个二分图。我们用大肠杆菌代谢的例子来说明我们的方法。我们的模型根据观察结果进行调整,以获得单个代谢产物-反应对之间的连接概率,并且在验证后,我们整合单个链接信息以评估每个反应在概率方面的可靠性。这种基于网络的评分系统打破了目前采用的分数的简并性,能够进一步确认建模结果,揭示可能在功能上或进化上重要的非常具体的反应,并确定突出的实验目标以供进一步验证。鉴于许多生物相互作用的自然网络双偶性,我们预见了我们的方法的广泛潜在应用。

英文摘要:

Reliability on complex biological networks reconstructions remains a concern. Although observations are getting more and more precise, the data collection process is yet error prone and the proofs display uneven certitude. In the case of metabolic networks, the currently employed confidence scoring system rates reactions according to a discretized small set of labels denoting different levels of experimental evidence or model-based likelihood. Here, we propose a computational network-based system of reaction scoring that exploits the complex hierarchical structure and the statistical regularities of the metabolic network as a bipartite graph. We use the example of Escherichia coli metabolism to illustrate our methodology. Our model is adjusted to the observations in order to derive connection probabilities between individual metabolite-reaction pairs and, after validation, we integrate individual link information to assess the reliability of each reaction in probabilistic terms. This network-based scoring system breaks the degeneracy of currently employed scores, enables further confirmation of modeling results, uncovers very specific reactions that could be functionally or evolutionary important, and identifies prominent experimental targets for further verification. We foresee a wide range of potential applications of our approach given the natural network bipartivity of many biological interactions.

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。

↑