Dataset Information

BloodGen3Module: Blood transcriptional module repertoire analysis and visualization using R.

ABSTRACT:

Motivation

We previously described the construction and characterization of generic and reusable blood transcriptional module repertoires. More recently we released a third iteration ("BloodGen3" module repertoire) that comprises 382 functionally annotated gene sets (modules) and encompasses 14,168 transcripts. Custom bioinformatic tools are needed to support downstream analysis, visualization and interpretation relying on such fixed module repertoires.

Results

We have developed and describe here a R package, BloodGen3Module. The functions of our package permit group comparison analyses to be performed at the module-level, and to display the results as annotated fingerprint grid plots. A parallel workflow for computing module repertoire changes for individual samples rather than groups of samples is also available; these results are displayed as fingerprint heatmaps. An illustrative case is used to demonstrate the steps involved in generating blood transcriptome repertoire fingerprints of septic patients. Taken together, this resource could facilitate the analysis and interpretation of changes in blood transcript abundance observed across a wide range of pathological and physiological states.

Availability

The BloodGen3Module package and documentation are freely available from Github: https://github.com/Drinchai/BloodGen3Module.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Rinchai D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8388021 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project 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.