Dataset Information

Data- and expert-driven rule induction and filtering framework for functional interpretation and description of gene sets.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-throughput methods in molecular biology provided researchers with abundance of experimental data that need to be interpreted in order to understand the experimental results. Manual methods of functional gene/protein group interpretation are expensive and time-consuming; therefore, there is a need to develop new efficient data mining methods and bioinformatics tools that could support the expert in the process of functional analysis of experimental results.

Results

In this study, we propose a comprehensive framework for the induction of logical rules in the form of combinations of Gene Ontology (GO) terms for functional interpretation of gene sets. Within the framework, we present four approaches: the fully automated method of rule induction without filtering, rule induction method with filtering, expert-driven rule filtering method based on additive utility functions, and expert-driven rule induction method based on the so-called seed or expert terms - the GO terms of special interest which should be included into the description. These GO terms usually describe some processes or pathways of particular interest, which are related to the experiment that is being performed. During the rule induction and filtering processes such seed terms are used as a base on which the description is build.

Conclusion

We compare the descriptions obtained with different algorithms of rule induction and filtering and show that a filtering step is required to reduce the number of rules in the output set so that they could be analyzed by a human expert. However, filtering may remove information from the output rule set which is potentially interesting for the expert. Therefore, in the study, we present two methods that involve interaction with the expert during the process of rule induction. Both of them are able to reduce the number of rules, but only in the case of the method based on seed terms, each of the created rule includes expert terms in combination with the other terms. Further analysis of such combinations may provide new knowledge about biological processes and their combination with other pathways related to genes described by the rules. A suite of Matlab scripts that provide the functionality of a comprehensive framework for the rule induction and filtering presented in this study is available free of charge at: http://rulego.polsl.pl/framework .

SUBMITTER: Gruca A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5483958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnnotation of a set of genes is often accomplished through comparison to a library of labelled gene sets such as biological processes or canonical pathways. However, this approach might fail if the employed libraries are not up to date with the latest research, don't capture relevant biological themes or are curated at a different level of granularity than is required to appropriately analyze the input gene set. At the same time, the vast biomedical literature offers an unstructured repository of the latest research findings that can be tapped to provide thematic sub-groupings for any input gene set.MethodsOur proposed method relies on a gene-specific text corpus and extracts commonalities between documents in an unsupervised manner using a topic model approach. We automatically determine the number of topics summarizing the corpus and calculate a gene relevancy score for each topic allowing us to eliminate non-specific topics. As a result we obtain a set of literature topics in which each topic is associated with a subset of the input genes providing directly interpretable keywords and corresponding documents for literature research.ResultsWe validate our method based on labelled gene sets from the KEGG metabolic pathway collection and the genetic association database (GAD) and show that the approach is able to detect topics consistent with the labelled annotation. Furthermore, we discuss the results on three different types of experimentally derived gene sets, (1) differentially expressed genes from a cardiac hypertrophy experiment in mice, (2) altered transcript abundance in human pancreatic beta cells, and (3) genes implicated by GWA studies to be associated with metabolite levels in a healthy population. In all three cases, we are able to replicate findings from the original papers in a quick and semi-automated manner.ConclusionsOur approach provides a novel way of automatically generating meaningful annotations for gene sets that are directly tied to relevant articles in the literature. Extending a general topic model method, the approach introduced here establishes a workflow for the interpretation of gene sets generated from diverse experimental scenarios that can complement the classical approach of comparison to reference gene sets.

Project description:IntroductionHIV-1 genotypic resistance test (GRT) interpretation systems (IS) require updates as new studies on HIV-1 drug resistance are published and as treatment guidelines evolve.MethodsAn expert panel was created to provide recommendations for the update of the Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database (HIVDB) GRT-IS. The panel was polled on the ARVs to be included in a GRT report, and the drug-resistance interpretations associated with 160 drug-resistance mutation (DRM) pattern-ARV combinations. The DRM pattern-ARV combinations included 52 nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (13 patterns x 4 NRTIs), 27 nonnucleoside RT inhibitor (NNRTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (9 patterns x 3 NNRTIs), 39 protease inhibitor (PI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (13 patterns x 3 PIs) and 42 integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (14 patterns x 3 INSTIs).ResultsThere was universal agreement that a GRT report should include the NRTIs lamivudine, abacavir, zidovudine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; the NNRTIs efavirenz, etravirine, nevirapine, and rilpivirine; the PIs atazanavir/r, darunavir/r, and lopinavir/r (with "/r" indicating pharmacological boosting with ritonavir or cobicistat); and the INSTIs dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir. There was a range of opinion as to whether the NRTIs stavudine and didanosine and the PIs nelfinavir, indinavir/r, saquinavir/r, fosamprenavir/r, and tipranavir/r should be included. The expert panel members provided highly concordant DRM pattern-ARV interpretations with only 6% of NRTI, 6% of NNRTI, 5% of PI, and 3% of INSTI individual expert interpretations differing from the expert panel median by more than one resistance level. The expert panel median differed from the HIVDB 7.0 GRT-IS for 20 (12.5%) of the 160 DRM pattern-ARV combinations including 12 NRTI, two NNRTI, and six INSTI pattern-ARV combinations. Eighteen of these differences were updated in HIVDB 8.1 GRT-IS to reflect the expert panel median. Additionally, HIVDB users are now provided with the option to exclude those ARVs not considered to be universally required.ConclusionsThe HIVDB GRT-IS was updated through a collaborative process to reflect changes in HIV drug resistance knowledge, treatment guidelines, and expert opinion. Such a process broadens consensus among experts and identifies areas requiring further study.