A data integration methodology for systems biology.

Different experimental technologies measure different aspects of a system and to differing depth and breadth. High-throughput assays have inherently high false-positive and false-negative rates. Moreover, each technology includes systematic biases of a different nature. These differences make network reconstruction from multiple data sets difficult and error-prone. Additionally, because of the rapid rate of progress in biotechnology, there is usually no curated exemplar data set from which one might estimate data integration parameters. To address these concerns, we have developed data integration methods that can handle multiple data sets differing in statistical power, type, size, and network coverage without requiring a curated training data set. Our methodology is general in purpose and may be applied to integrate data from any existing and future technologies. Here we outline our methods and then demonstrate their performance by applying them to simulated data sets. The results show that these methods select true-positive data elements much more accurately than classical approaches. In an accompanying companion paper, we demonstrate the applicability of our approach to biological data. We have integrated our methodology into a free open source software package named POINTILLIST.

[1]  Richard D. Deveaux,et al.  Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis , 1999, Technometrics.

[2]  T. Ideker,et al.  A new approach to decoding life: systems biology. , 2001, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[3]  F. B. Hildebrand,et al.  Introduction To Numerical Analysis , 1957 .

[4]  Michael E Phelps,et al.  Systems Biology and New Technologies Enable Predictive and Preventative Medicine , 2004, Science.

[5]  H. Herzel,et al.  Is there a bias in proteome research? , 2001, Genome research.

[6]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[7]  Andreas Wagner,et al.  A statistical framework for combining and interpreting proteomic datasets , 2004, Bioinform..

[8]  M. Gerstein,et al.  A Bayesian Networks Approach for Predicting Protein-Protein Interactions from Genomic Data , 2003, Science.

[9]  Roger E Bumgarner,et al.  Integrated genomic and proteomic analyses of a systematically perturbed metabolic network. , 2001, Science.

[10]  C. Deane,et al.  Protein Interactions , 2002, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[11]  B. Snel,et al.  Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions , 2002, Nature.

[12]  Luc Devroye,et al.  Random variate generation for multivariate unimodal densities , 1997, TOMC.

[13]  Alexey I Nesvizhskii,et al.  Empirical statistical model to estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications made by MS/MS and database search. , 2002, Analytical chemistry.

[14]  L. Hood,et al.  A data integration methodology for systems biology: experimental verification. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Nicola J. Rinaldi,et al.  Computational discovery of gene modules and regulatory networks , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  Nicola J. Rinaldi,et al.  Transcriptional Regulatory Networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2002, Science.

[17]  Christian von Mering,et al.  Genome organization: Teamed up for transcription , 2002, Nature.