Identification of differentially expressed subnetworks based on multivariate ANOVA

BackgroundSince high-throughput protein-protein interaction (PPI) data has recently become available for humans, there has been a growing interest in combining PPI data with other genome-wide data. In particular, the identification of phenotype-related PPI subnetworks using gene expression data has been of great concern. Successful integration for the identification of significant subnetworks requires the use of a search algorithm with a proper scoring method. Here we propose a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)-based scoring method with a greedy search for identifying differentially expressed PPI subnetworks.ResultsGiven the MANOVA-based scoring method, we performed a greedy search to identify the subnetworks with the maximum scores in the PPI network. Our approach was successfully applied to human microarray datasets. Each identified subnetwork was annotated with the Gene Ontology (GO) term, resulting in the phenotype-related functional pathway or complex. We also compared these results with those of other scoring methods such as t statistic- and mutual information-based scoring methods. The MANOVA-based method produced subnetworks with a larger number of proteins than the other methods. Furthermore, the subnetworks identified by the MANOVA-based method tended to consist of highly correlated proteins.ConclusionThis article proposes a MANOVA-based scoring method to combine PPI data with expression data using a greedy search. This method is recommended for the highly sensitive detection of large subnetworks.

[1]  R. Kalluri,et al.  Mechanisms of metastasis: Epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition and contribution of tumor microenvironment , 2007, Journal of cellular biochemistry.

[2]  Sayan Mukherjee,et al.  Modeling Cancer Progression via Pathway Dependencies , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[3]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Similar binding sites and different partners: implications to shared proteins in cellular pathways. , 2007, Structure.

[5]  Ozlem Keskin,et al.  Topological properties of protein interaction networks from a structural perspective. , 2008, Biochemical Society transactions.

[6]  E. Keller,et al.  Prostate cancer induces bone metastasis through Wnt-induced bone morphogenetic protein-dependent and independent mechanisms. , 2008, Cancer research.

[7]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Gene Expression Signature of Fibroblast Serum Response Predicts Human Cancer Progression: Similarities between Tumors and Wounds , 2004, PLoS biology.

[8]  Jing Zhu,et al.  Edge-based scoring and searching method for identifying condition-responsive protein-protein interaction sub-network , 2007, Bioinform..

[9]  Christina Kendziorski,et al.  On Differential Variability of Expression Ratios: Improving Statistical Inference about Gene Expression Changes from Microarray Data , 2001, J. Comput. Biol..

[10]  P. Finn,et al.  Molecular Systems Biology 3; Article number 98; doi:10.1038/msb4100138 Citation: Molecular Systems Biology 3:98 , 2022 .

[11]  Jing Zhu,et al.  Edge-based scoring and searching method for identifying condition-responsive protein-protein interaction sub-network , 2007, Bioinform..

[12]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  The effect of replication on gene expression microarray experiments , 2003, Bioinform..

[14]  O. Keskina,et al.  Towards Drugs Targeting Multiple Proteins in a Systems Biology Approach , 2008 .

[15]  Benno Schwikowski,et al.  Discovering regulatory and signalling circuits in molecular interaction networks , 2002, ISMB.

[16]  P. Park,et al.  Discovering statistically significant pathways in expression profiling studies. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Protein–protein interactions: organization, cooperativity and mapping in a bottom-up Systems Biology approach , 2005, Physical biology.

[18]  Serban Nacu,et al.  Gene expression network analysis and applications to immunology , 2007, Bioinform..

[19]  Dennis B. Troup,et al.  NCBI GEO: mining millions of expression profiles—database and tools , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  J. Hoheisel,et al.  Systematic interpretation of microarray data using experiment annotations , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[21]  Tobias Müller,et al.  Identifying functional modules in protein–protein interaction networks: an integrated exact approach , 2008, ISMB.

[22]  Christian V. Forst,et al.  Differential network expression during drug and stress response , 2005, Bioinform..

[23]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[24]  Taesung Park,et al.  Statistical tests for identifying differentially expressed genes in time-course microarray experiments , 2003, Bioinform..

[25]  Srinivasan Parthasarathy,et al.  Construction of a reference gene association network from multiple profiling data: application to data analysis , 2007, Bioinform..

[26]  Sang-Bae Kim,et al.  GAzer: gene set analyzer , 2007, Bioinform..

[27]  T. Ideker,et al.  Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis , 2007, Molecular systems biology.