Construction and analysis of gene-gene dynamics influence networks based on a Boolean model

BackgroundIdentification of novel gene-gene relations is a crucial issue to understand system-level biological phenomena. To this end, many methods based on a correlation analysis of gene expressions or structural analysis of molecular interaction networks have been proposed. They have a limitation in identifying more complicated gene-gene dynamical relations, though.ResultsTo overcome this limitation, we proposed a measure to quantify a gene-gene dynamical influence (GDI) using a Boolean network model and constructed a GDI network to indicate existence of a dynamical influence for every ordered pair of genes. It represents how much a state trajectory of a target gene is changed by a knockout mutation subject to a source gene in a gene-gene molecular interaction (GMI) network. Through a topological comparison between GDI and GMI networks, we observed that the former network is denser than the latter network, which implies that there exist many gene pairs of dynamically influencing but molecularly non-interacting relations. In addition, a larger number of hub genes were generated in the GDI network. On the other hand, there was a correlation between these networks such that the degree value of a node was positively correlated to each other. We further investigated the relationships of the GDI value with structural properties and found that there are negative and positive correlations with the length of a shortest path and the number of paths, respectively. In addition, a GDI network could predict a set of genes whose steady-state expression is affected in E. coli gene-knockout experiments. More interestingly, we found that the drug-targets with side-effects have a larger number of outgoing links than the other genes in the GDI network, which implies that they are more likely to influence the dynamics of other genes. Finally, we found biological evidences showing that the gene pairs which are not molecularly interacting but dynamically influential can be considered for novel gene-gene relationships.ConclusionTaken together, construction and analysis of the GDI network can be a useful approach to identify novel gene-gene relationships in terms of the dynamical influence.

[1]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Dynamical Robustness against Multiple Mutations in Signaling Networks , 2016, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[2]  Carsten Peterson,et al.  Random Boolean network models and the yeast transcriptional network , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  R. Albert,et al.  Predicting Essential Components of Signal Transduction Networks: A Dynamic Model of Guard Cell Abscisic Acid Signaling , 2006, PLoS biology.

[4]  Yunming Ye,et al.  Protein functional properties prediction in sparsely-label PPI networks through regularized non-negative matrix factorization , 2015, BMC Systems Biology.

[5]  Duc-Hau Le,et al.  The effects of feedback loops on disease comorbidity in human signaling networks , 2011, Bioinform..

[6]  Duc-Hau Le,et al.  PANET: A GPU-Based Tool for Fast Parallel Analysis of Robustness Dynamics and Feed-Forward/Feedback Loop Structures in Large-Scale Biological Networks , 2014, PloS one.

[7]  Y. Moon,et al.  Temporal and spatial requirement of EMF1 activity for Arabidopsis vegetative and reproductive development. , 2009, Molecular plant.

[8]  Carlos HA Higa,et al.  Constraint-based analysis of gene interactions using restricted boolean networks and time-series data , 2011, BMC proceedings.

[9]  Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla,et al.  Dynamic Network-Based Epistasis Analysis: Boolean Examples , 2011, Front. Plant Sci..

[10]  P. Phillips.  Epistasis — the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[11]  L. Hurst.  Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process , 2000, Heredity.

[12]  S. P. Cornelius,et al.  Realistic control of network dynamics , 2013, Nature Communications.

[13]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  ORIGINS OF ORDER IN EVOLUTION: SELF-ORGANIZATION AND SELECTION , 1992 .

[14]  G. Church,et al.  Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[15]  Lucas Pelkmans,et al.  Predicting functional gene interactions with the hierarchical interaction score , 2013, Nature Methods.

[16]  T. Helikar,et al.  Emergent decision-making in biological signal transduction networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Quantitative analysis of robustness and fragility in biological networks based on feedback dynamics , 2008, Bioinform..

[18]  Chris D. Greenman,et al.  The Relative Timing of Mutations in a Breast Cancer Genome , 2013, PloS one.

[19]  Xia Li,et al.  Gene Perturbation Atlas (GPA): a single-gene perturbation repository for characterizing functional mechanisms of coding and non-coding genes , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[20]  S.-W.,et al.  Response Network Emerging from Simple Perturbation , 2004 .

[21]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Annette Lee,et al.  CSK regulatory polymorphism is associated with systemic lupus erythematosus and influences B cell signaling and activation , 2012, Nature Genetics.

[23]  Kyung-ah Sohn,et al.  Relevance Epistasis Network of Gastritis for Intra-chromosomes in the Korea Associated Resource (KARE) Cohort Study , 2014, Genomics & informatics.

[24]  Martin A Nowak,et al.  Timing and heterogeneity of mutations associated with drug resistance in metastatic cancers , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Genetic networks with canalyzing Boolean rules are always stable. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Investigations into the relationship between feedback loops and functional importance of a signal transduction network based on Boolean network modeling , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  Marcus Kaiser,et al.  Edge vulnerability in neural and metabolic networks , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[28]  S. Shannon,et al.  Genetic Interactions That Regulate Inflorescence Development in Arabidopsis. , 1993, The Plant cell.

[29]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Drug—target network , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[30]  Stefan Gottschalk,et al.  The Origins Of Order Self Organization And Selection In Evolution , 2016 .

[31]  Diane Gilbert-Diamond,et al.  Analysis of gene-gene interactions. , 2011, Current protocols in human genetics.

[32]  Julio Collado-Vides,et al.  RegulonDB v8.0: omics data sets, evolutionary conservation, regulatory phrases, cross-validated gold standards and more , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[33]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Boolean dynamics of biological networks with multiple coupled feedback loops. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[34]  D. Zilberman,et al.  EMF1 and PRC2 Cooperate to Repress Key Regulators of Arabidopsis Development , 2012, PLoS genetics.

[35]  Kristof Z. Szalay,et al.  Targets of drugs are generally, and targets of drugs having side effects are specifically good spreaders of human interactome perturbations , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Analysis of feedback loops and robustness in network evolution based on Boolean models , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[37]  C. Myers,et al.  Genetic interaction networks: toward an understanding of heritability. , 2013, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[38]  Colin Campbell,et al.  Stabilization of perturbed Boolean network attractors through compensatory interactions , 2014, BMC Systems Biology.

[39]  J. MacQueen.  Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations , 1967 .

[40]  Martin Zwick,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology Reconstructability Analysis as a Tool for Identifying Gene-Gene Interactions in Studies of Human Diseases , 2011 .

[41]  Andre Levchenko,et al.  Dynamic Properties of Network Motifs Contribute to Biological Network Organization , 2005, PLoS biology.

[42]  Edwin Wang,et al.  Protein evolution on a human signaling network , 2009, BMC Systems Biology.

[43]  Jeremiah J. Faith,et al.  Many Microbe Microarrays Database: uniformly normalized Affymetrix compendia with structured experimental metadata , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[44]  Yunming Ye,et al.  Semi-supervised multi-label collective classification ensemble for functional genomics , 2014, BMC Genomics.

[45]  Peer Bork,et al.  The SIDER database of drugs and side effects , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[46]  Aurélien Naldi,et al.  Dynamical analysis of a generic Boolean model for the control of the mammalian cell cycle , 2006, ISMB.

[47]  Yunming Ye,et al.  Collective prediction of protein functions from protein-protein interaction networks , 2014, BMC Bioinformatics.

[48]  S. Kauffman.  Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.

[49]  Z. R. Sung,et al.  EMBRYONIC FLOWER1 Participates in Polycomb Group–Mediated AG Gene Silencing in Arabidopsis[W] , 2008, The Plant Cell Online.

[50]  M. Sagot,et al.  Structural and dynamical analysis of biological networks. , 2012, Briefings in functional genomics.

[51]  T. Zhu,et al.  Epigenetic Regulation of Gene Programs by EMF1 and EMF2 in Arabidopsis1[W][OA] , 2009, Plant Physiology.

[52]  Y. Liu,et al.  Human GH receptor-IGF-1 receptor interaction: implications for GH signaling. , 2014, Molecular endocrinology.

[53]  Jason H Moore,et al.  Analysis of Gene‐Gene Interactions , 2003, Current protocols in human genetics.

[54]  S. Desiderio,et al.  Differential Effects of B Cell Receptor and B Cell Receptor–FcγRIIB1 Engagement on Docking of Csk to GTPase-activating Protein (GAP)-associated p62 , 1997, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[55]  Hung-Cuong Trinh,et al.  Effective Boolean dynamics analysis to identify functionally important genes in large-scale signaling networks , 2015, Biosyst..

[56]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘Omics’ research on drugs , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[57]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[58]  S. Spiegel,et al.  Sphingolipid signalling in Arabidopsis guard cells involves heterotrimeric G proteins , 2003, Nature.

[59]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[60]  S. Spiegel,et al.  Sphingosine 1-phosphate and ceramide 1-phosphate: expanding roles in cell signaling , 2005, Journal of Cell Science.

[61]  Hung-Cuong Trinh,et al.  Edge-based sensitivity analysis of signaling networks by using Boolean dynamics , 2016, Bioinform..

[62]  Denis Thieffry,et al.  Genetic control of flower morphogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana: a logical analysis , 1999, Bioinform..

[63]  H. Cordell.  Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[64]  H. Cordell.  Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. , 2002, Human molecular genetics.

[65]  M. F. Sjaugi,et al.  A bioinformatics potpourri , 2018, BMC Genomics.

[66]  Simo V. Zhang,et al.  A map of human cancer signaling , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[67]  Paola Lecca,et al.  Defining order and timing of mutations during cancer progression: the TO-DAG probabilistic graphical model , 2015, Front. Genet..

[68]  Jong Y. Park,et al.  Coexpression and expression quantitative trait loci analyses of the angiogenesis gene-gene interaction network in prostate cancer. , 2016, Translational cancer research.

[69]  I. Jurisica,et al.  Network-based characterization of drug-regulated genes, drug targets, and toxicity. , 2012, Methods.

[70]  P. Bork,et al.  Systematic identification of proteins that elicit drug side effects , 2013, Molecular systems biology.

[71]  Sanjay Jain,et al.  The regulatory network of E. coli metabolism as a Boolean dynamical system exhibits both homeostasis and flexibility of response , 2007 .

[72]  Yongshuai Jiang,et al.  The drug target genes show higher evolutionary conservation than non-target genes , 2015, Oncotarget.

[73]  D. Galas,et al.  Diseases as network perturbations. , 2010, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[74]  Mahbubul Majumder,et al.  Systems Perturbation Analysis of a Large-Scale Signal Transduction Model Reveals Potentially Influential Candidates for Cancer Therapeutics , 2015, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol..

[75]  John Quackenbush,et al.  Inference and validation of predictive gene networks from biomedical literature and gene expression data. , 2014, Genomics.