Network‑based gene function inference method to predict optimal gene functions associated with fetal growth restriction

Ye,Ke‑Jun; Dai,Jie; Liu,Ling‑Yun; Peng,Meng‑Jia

doi:10.3892/mmr.2018.9232

Network‑based gene function inference method to predict optimal gene functions associated with fetal growth restriction

Authors:
- Ke‑Jun Ye
- Jie Dai
- Ling‑Yun Liu
- Meng‑Jia Peng
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Ruian People's Hospital, Ruian, Zhejiang 325200, P.R. China, Department of Clinical Laboratory, Ruian People's Hospital, Ruian, Zhejiang 325200, P.R. China
Published online on: June 29, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.9232
Pages: 3003-3010

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The guilt by association (GBA) principle has been widely used to predict gene functions, and a network‑based approach may enhance the confidence and stability of the analysis compared with focusing on individual genes. Fetal growth restriction (FGR), is the second primary cause of perinatal mortality. Therefore, the present study aimed to predict the optimal gene functions for FGR using a network‑based GBA method. The method was comprised of four parts: Identification of differentially‑expressed genes (DEGs) between patients with FGR and normal controls based on gene expression data; construction of a co‑expression network (CEN) dependent on DEGs, using the Spearman correlation coefficient algorithm; collection of gene ontology (GO) data on the basis of a known confirmed database and DEGs; and prediction of optimal gene functions using the GBA algorithm, for which the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was obtained for each GO term. A total of 115 DEGs and 109 GO terms were obtained for subsequent analysis. All DEGs were mapped to the CEN and formed 6,555 edges. The results of GBA algorithm demonstrated that 78 GO terms had a good classification performance with AUC >0.5. In particular, the AUC for 5 of the GO terms was >0.7, and these were defined as optimal gene functions, including defense response, immune system process, response to stress, cellular response to chemical stimulus and positive regulation of biological process. In conclusion, the results of the present study provided insights into the pathological mechanism underlying FGR, and provided potential biomarkers for early detection and targeted treatment of this disease. However, the interactions between the 5 GO terms remain unclear, and further studies are required.

View Figures

View References

1	Nardozza LM, Araujo Júnior E, Barbosa MM, Caetano AC, Lee DJ and Moron AF: Fetal growth restriction: Current knowledge to the general Obs/Gyn. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 286:1–13. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Nishizawa H, Ota S, Suzuki M, Kato T, Sekiya T, Kurahashi H and Udagawa Y: Comparative gene expression profiling of placentas from patients with severe pre-eclampsia and unexplained fetal growth restriction. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 9:1072011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Veiby G, Daltveit AK, Engelsen BA and Gilhus NE: Fetal growth restriction and birth defects with newer and older antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy. J Neurol. 261:579–588. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Figueras F and Gratacós E: Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 36:86–98. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Zhao J, Yang TH, Huang Y and Holme P: Ranking candidate disease genes from gene expression and protein interaction: A Katz-centrality based approach. PLoS One. 6:e243062011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Liu ZP, Wang Y, Zhang XS and Chen L: Network-based analysis of complex diseases. IET Syst Biol. 6:22–23. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Chen L, Wang RS and Zhang XS: Reconstruction of Gene Regulatory NetworksBiomolecular Networks. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; pp. 47–87. 2009, View Article : Google Scholar
8	Gillis J and Pavlidis P: The impact of multifunctional genes on ‘guilt by association’ analysis. PLoS One. 6:e172582011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Gillis J and Pavlidis P: The role of indirect connections in gene networks in predicting function. Bioinformatics. 27:1860–1866. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Irizarry RA, Bolstad BM, Collin F, Cope LM, Hobbs B and Speed TP: Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:e152003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA, Astrand M and Speed TP: A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics. 19:185–193. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Bolstad B: affy: Built-in processing methods. Journal. 2013.
13	Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W and Smyth GK: Limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:e472015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Datta S, Satten GA, Benos DJ, Xia J, Heslin MJ and Datta S: An empirical bayes adjustment to increase the sensitivity of detecting differentially expressed genes in microarray experiments. Bioinformatics. 20:235–242. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Reiner A, Yekutieli D and Benjamini Y: Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures. Bioinformatics. 19:368–375. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, Amin N, Schwikowski B and Ideker T: Cytoscape: A software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13:2498–2504. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Szmidt E and Kacprzyk J: The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal. 276–280. 2010.
18	Gene Ontology Consortium: Gene ontology consortium: Going forward. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:(Database Issue). D1049–D1056. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Huang J and Ling CX: Using AUC and accuracy in evaluating learning algorithms. IEEE Transact Know Data Eng. 17:299–310. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Ma S, Shah S, Bohnert HJ, Snyder M and Dinesh-kumar SP: Incorporating motif analysis into gene co-expression networks reveals novel modular expression pattern and new signaling pathways. PLoS Genet. 9:e10038402013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Zhang B and Horvath S: A general framework for weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 4:Article17. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Horvath S and Dong J: Geometric interpretation of gene coexpression network analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 4:e10001172008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Yip AM and Horvath S: Gene network interconnectedness and the generalized topological overlap measure. BMC Bioinformatics. 8:222007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Hauke J and Kossowski T: Comparison of values of pearson's and spearman's correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae. 30:87–93. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Chua HN, Sung WK and Wong L: Exploiting indirect neighbours and topological weight to predict protein function from protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics. 22:1623–1630. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Weston AD and Hood L: Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: Toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res. 3:179–196. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Peña-Castillo L, Tasan M, Myers CL, Lee H, Joshi T, Zhang C, Guan Y, Leone M, Pagnani A, Kim WK, et al: A critical assessment of Mus musculus gene function prediction using integrated genomic evidence. Genome Biol. 9 Suppl 1:S22008. View Article : Google Scholar
28	Grice EA, Snitkin ES, Yockey LJ and Bermudez DM: NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, Liechty KW and Segre JA: Longitudinal shift in diabetic wound microbiota correlates with prolonged skin defense response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:14799–14804. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Osborn O and Olefsky JM: The cellular and signaling networks linking the immune system and metabolism in disease. Nat Med. 18:363–374. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Finn OJ: Immuno-oncology: Understanding the function and dysfunction of the immune system in cancer. Ann Oncol. 23 Suppl 8:viii6–viii9. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Smith SE, Li J, Garbett K, Mirnics K and Patterson PH: Maternal immune activation alters fetal brain development through interleukin-6. J Neurosci. 27:10695–10702. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Fenzl SC, Hirsch T and Wolfbeis OS: Photonic crystals for chemical sensing and biosensing. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 53:3318–3335. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI