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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Michoel, Tom, De Smet, Riet, Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan, Van de Peer, Yves, Marchal, Kathleen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Michoel, Tom
De Smet, Riet
Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan
Van de Peer, Yves
Marchal, Kathleen
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 Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ghent</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_749001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>oai_archive_ugent_be_749001</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_7490013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdTktqwzAQFaGBpk3vMBcwyE6NyTq09ADZi7E9lqeVpTAjO-T2dSCLrrt6D953Y3ZlU1eFre3x6Q9_Ni-q39bWh6pqdmY5pemCgpkXAowYbsoKaYAp9XOgokWlHhYSnRV6FuoyTJTH1CsMSUDorlFB0XMkEo4esmDUTviSOa2Nq8fPAXOSG0TK1yQ_ujfbAYPS2wNfTfn5cT59FX6kmF3gdl3C7BKyQ-nG9Z2b_V1qyTXvR2vLw38yvyTmXNY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Institutional Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks</title><source>PMC (PubMed Central)</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>Ghent University Academic Bibliography</source><source>BioMed Central Journals Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Michoel, Tom ; De Smet, Riet ; Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan ; Van de Peer, Yves ; Marchal, Kathleen</creator><creatorcontrib>Michoel, Tom ; De Smet, Riet ; Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan ; Van de Peer, Yves ; Marchal, Kathleen</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1752-0509</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1752-0509</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>ALGORITHMS ; CELLS ; CEREVISIAE ; ESCHERICHIA-COLI ; GENE-EXPRESSION DATA ; ORGANIZATION ; Science General ; YEAST</subject><creationdate>2009</creationdate><rights>Information pending info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,315,780,784,4022,27858</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Michoel, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Smet, Riet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Peer, Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchal, Kathleen</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks</title><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.</description><subject>ALGORITHMS</subject><subject>CELLS</subject><subject>CEREVISIAE</subject><subject>ESCHERICHIA-COLI</subject><subject>GENE-EXPRESSION DATA</subject><subject>ORGANIZATION</subject><subject>Science General</subject><subject>YEAST</subject><issn>1752-0509</issn><issn>1752-0509</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ADGLB</sourceid><recordid>eNqdTktqwzAQFaGBpk3vMBcwyE6NyTq09ADZi7E9lqeVpTAjO-T2dSCLrrt6D953Y3ZlU1eFre3x6Q9_Ni-q39bWh6pqdmY5pemCgpkXAowYbsoKaYAp9XOgokWlHhYSnRV6FuoyTJTH1CsMSUDorlFB0XMkEo4esmDUTviSOa2Nq8fPAXOSG0TK1yQ_ujfbAYPS2wNfTfn5cT59FX6kmF3gdl3C7BKyQ-nG9Z2b_V1qyTXvR2vLw38yvyTmXNY</recordid><startdate>2009</startdate><enddate>2009</enddate><creator>Michoel, Tom</creator><creator>De Smet, Riet</creator><creator>Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan</creator><creator>Van de Peer, Yves</creator><creator>Marchal, Kathleen</creator><scope>ADGLB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2009</creationdate><title>Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks</title><author>Michoel, Tom ; De Smet, Riet ; Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan ; Van de Peer, Yves ; Marchal, Kathleen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_7490013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>ALGORITHMS</topic><topic>CELLS</topic><topic>CEREVISIAE</topic><topic>ESCHERICHIA-COLI</topic><topic>GENE-EXPRESSION DATA</topic><topic>ORGANIZATION</topic><topic>Science General</topic><topic>YEAST</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Michoel, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Smet, Riet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Peer, Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchal, Kathleen</creatorcontrib><collection>Ghent University Academic Bibliography</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Michoel, Tom</au><au>De Smet, Riet</au><au>Joshi, Anagha Madhusudan</au><au>Van de Peer, Yves</au><au>Marchal, Kathleen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks</atitle><date>2009</date><risdate>2009</risdate><issn>1752-0509</issn><eissn>1752-0509</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1752-0509
ispartof
issn 1752-0509
1752-0509
language eng
recordid cdi_ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_749001
source PMC (PubMed Central); PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; Ghent University Academic Bibliography; BioMed Central Journals Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects ALGORITHMS
CELLS
CEREVISIAE
ESCHERICHIA-COLI
GENE-EXPRESSION DATA
ORGANIZATION
Science General
YEAST
title Comparative analysis of module-based versus direct methods for reverse-engineering transcriptional regulatory networks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T06%3A22%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ghent&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20analysis%20of%20module-based%20versus%20direct%20methods%20for%20reverse-engineering%20transcriptional%20regulatory%20networks&rft.au=Michoel,%20Tom&rft.date=2009&rft.issn=1752-0509&rft.eissn=1752-0509&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cghent%3Eoai_archive_ugent_be_749001%3C/ghent%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true