Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: A myriad of methods to reverse-engineer transcriptional regulatory networks have been developed in recent years. Direct methods directly reconstruct a network of pairwise regulatory interactions while module-based methods predict a set of regulators for modules of coexpressed genes treat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michoel, Tom, De Smet, Riet, Joshi, Anagha, Van de Peer, Yves, Marchal, Kathleen
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-49
_version_ 1782167167492423680
author Michoel, Tom
De Smet, Riet
Joshi, Anagha
Van de Peer, Yves
Marchal, Kathleen
author_facet Michoel, Tom
De Smet, Riet
Joshi, Anagha
Van de Peer, Yves
Marchal, Kathleen
author_sort Michoel, Tom
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A myriad of methods to reverse-engineer transcriptional regulatory networks have been developed in recent years. Direct methods directly reconstruct a network of pairwise regulatory interactions while module-based methods predict a set of regulators for modules of coexpressed genes treated as a single unit. To date, there has been no systematic comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both types of methods. RESULTS: We have compared a recently developed module-based algorithm, LeMoNe (Learning Module Networks), to a mutual information based direct algorithm, CLR (Context Likelihood of Relatedness), 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. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that module-based and direct methods retrieve largely distinct parts of the underlying transcriptional regulatory networks. The choice of algorithm should therefore be based on the particular biological problem of interest and not on global metrics which cannot be transferred between organisms. The development of sound statistical methods for integrating the predictions of different reverse-engineering strategies emerges as an important challenge for future research.
format Text
id pubmed-2684101
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26841012009-05-20 Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks Michoel, Tom De Smet, Riet Joshi, Anagha Van de Peer, Yves Marchal, Kathleen BMC Syst Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: A myriad of methods to reverse-engineer transcriptional regulatory networks have been developed in recent years. Direct methods directly reconstruct a network of pairwise regulatory interactions while module-based methods predict a set of regulators for modules of coexpressed genes treated as a single unit. To date, there has been no systematic comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both types of methods. RESULTS: We have compared a recently developed module-based algorithm, LeMoNe (Learning Module Networks), to a mutual information based direct algorithm, CLR (Context Likelihood of Relatedness), 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. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that module-based and direct methods retrieve largely distinct parts of the underlying transcriptional regulatory networks. The choice of algorithm should therefore be based on the particular biological problem of interest and not on global metrics which cannot be transferred between organisms. The development of sound statistical methods for integrating the predictions of different reverse-engineering strategies emerges as an important challenge for future research. BioMed Central 2009-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2684101/ /pubmed/19422680 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-49 Text en Copyright © 2009 Michoel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Michoel, Tom
De Smet, Riet
Joshi, Anagha
Van de Peer, Yves
Marchal, Kathleen
Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title_full Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title_short Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
title_sort comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684101/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422680
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-3-49
work_keys_str_mv AT michoeltom comparativeanalysisofmodulebasedversusdirectmethodsforreverseengineeringtranscriptionalregulatorynetworks
AT desmetriet comparativeanalysisofmodulebasedversusdirectmethodsforreverseengineeringtranscriptionalregulatorynetworks
AT joshianagha comparativeanalysisofmodulebasedversusdirectmethodsforreverseengineeringtranscriptionalregulatorynetworks
AT vandepeeryves comparativeanalysisofmodulebasedversusdirectmethodsforreverseengineeringtranscriptionalregulatorynetworks
AT marchalkathleen comparativeanalysisofmodulebasedversusdirectmethodsforreverseengineeringtranscriptionalregulatorynetworks