1 / 85

870 likes | 1.19k Vues

Reverse engineering gene regulatory networks. Dirk Husmeier Adriano Werhli Marco Grzegorczyk. Systems biology Learning signalling pathways and regulatory networks from postgenomic data. unknown. unknown. high-throughput experiments. postgenomic data. unknown. data. data.

Télécharger la présentation
## Reverse engineering gene regulatory networks

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Reverse engineering gene regulatory networks**Dirk Husmeier Adriano Werhli Marco Grzegorczyk**Systems biology**Learning signalling pathways and regulatory networks from postgenomic data**unknown**high-throughput experiments postgenomic data**unknown**data data machine learning statistical methods**extracted network**true network Does the extracted network provide a good prediction of the true interactions?**Reverse Engineering of Regulatory Networks**• Can we learn the network structure from postgenomic data themselves? • Statistical methods to distinguish between • Direct interactions • Indirect interactions • Challenge: Distinguish between • Correlations • Causal interactions • Breaking symmetries with active interventions: • Gene knockouts (VIGs, RNAi)**direct**interaction common regulator indirect interaction co-regulation**Relevance networks**• Graphical Gaussian models • Bayesian networks**Relevance networks**• Graphical Gaussian models • Bayesian networks**Relevance networks(Butte and Kohane, 2000)**• Choose a measure of association A(.,.) • Define a threshold value tA • For all pairs of domain variables (X,Y) compute their association A(X,Y) 4. Connect those variables (X,Y) by an undirected edge whose association A(X,Y) exceeds the predefined threshold value tA**1**2 ‘direct interaction’ X 1 2 1 2 X X ‘common regulator’ 1 1 2 2 ‘indirect interaction’ strong correlation σ12**Pairwise associations without taking the context of the**system into consideration**Relevance networks**• Graphical Gaussian models • Bayesian networks**1**2 direct interaction 1 2 Graphical Gaussian Models strong partial correlation π12 Partial correlation, i.e. correlation conditional on all other domain variables Corr(X1,X2|X3,…,Xn)**Distinguish between direct and indirect interactions**direct interaction common regulator indirect interaction co-regulation A and B have a low partial correlation**1**2 direct interaction 1 2 Graphical Gaussian Models strong partial correlation π12 Partial correlation, i.e. correlation conditional on all other domain variables Corr(X1,X2|X3,…,Xn) Problem: #observations < #variables**Graphical Gaussian Models**direct interaction common regulator indirect interaction P(A,B)=P(A)·P(B) But: P(A,B|C)≠P(A|C)·P(B|C)**Undirected versus directed edges**• Relevance networks and Graphical Gaussian models can only extract undirected edges. • Bayesian networks can extract directed edges. • But can we trust in these edge directions? It may be better to learn undirected edges than learning directed edges with false orientations.**Relevance networks**• Graphical Gaussian models • Bayesian networks**Bayesian networks**• Marriage between graph theory and probability theory. • Directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing conditional independence relations. • It is possible to score a network in light of the data: P(D|M), D:data, M: network structure. • We can infer how well a particular network explains the observed data. NODES A B C EDGES D E F**Bayesian networks versus causal networks**Bayesian networks represent conditional (in)dependence relations - not necessarily causal interactions.**Node A unknown**A A True causal graph B C B C Bayesian networks versus causal networks**Bayesian networks versus causal networks**A A A B C B C B C • Equivalence classes: networks with the same scores: P(D|M). • Equivalent networks cannot be distinguished in light of the data. A B C**A**C B Equivalence classes of BNs A C B A C A B P(A,B)≠P(A)·P(B) P(A,B|C)=P(A|C)·P(B|C) C B A C completed partially directed graphs (CPDAGs) B v-structure A P(A,B)=P(A)·P(B) P(A,B|C)≠P(A|C)·P(B|C) C B**Symmetry breaking**A A A B C B C B C A • Interventions • Priorknowledge B C**Symmetry breaking**A A A B C B C B C A • Interventions • Priorknowledge B C**Interventional data**A and B are correlated A B inhibition of A A B A B A B down-regulation of B no effect on B**Learning Bayesian networks from data**P(M|D) = P(D|M) P(M) / Z M: Network structure. D: Data**Learning Bayesian networks from data**P(M|D) = P(D|M) P(M) / Z M: Network structure. D: Data**Evaluation**• On real experimental data, using the gold standard network from the literature • On synthetic data simulated from the gold-standard network**Evaluation**• On real experimental data, using the gold standard network from the literature • On synthetic data simulated from the gold-standard network**Evaluation: Raf signalling pathway**• Cellular signalling network of 11 phosphorylated proteins and phospholipids in human immune systems cell • Deregulation carcinogenesis • Extensively studied in the literature gold standard network**Raf regulatory network**From Sachs et al Science 2005**Flow cytometry data**• Intracellular multicolour flow cytometry experiments: concentrations of 11 proteins • 5400 cells have been measured under 9 different cellular conditions (cues) • Downsampling to 100 instances (5 separate subsets): indicative of microarray experiments

More Related