Mining breast cancer genes with a network based noise-tolerant approach

Abstract

BackgroundMining novel breast cancer genes is an important task in breast cancer research. Many approaches prioritize candidate genes based on their similarity to known cancer genes, usually by integrating multiple data sources. However, different types of data often contain varying degrees of noise. For effective data integration, it’s important to design methods that work robustly with respect to noise.ResultsGene Ontology (GO) annotations were often utilized in cancer gene mining works. However, the vast majority of GO annotations were computationally derived, thus not completely accurate. A set of genes annotated with breast cancer enriched GO terms was adopted here as a set of source data with realistic noise. A novel noise tolerant approach was proposed to rank candidate breast cancer genes using noisy source data within the framework of a comprehensive human Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) network. Performance of the proposed method was quantitatively evaluated by comparing it with the more established random walk approach. Results showed that the proposed method exhibited better performance in ranking known breast cancer genes and higher robustness against data noise than the random walk approach. When noise started to increase, the proposed method was able to maintained relatively stable performance, while the random walk approach showed drastic performance decline; when noise increased to a large extent, the proposed method was still able to achieve better performance than random walk did.ConclusionsA novel noise tolerant method was proposed to mine breast cancer genes. Compared to the well established random walk approach, it showed better performance in correctly ranking cancer genes and worked robustly with respect to noise within source data. To the best of our knowledge, it’s the first such effort to quantitatively analyze noise tolerance between different breast cancer gene mining methods. The sorted gene list can be valuable for breast cancer research. The proposed quantitative noise analysis method may also prove useful for other data integration efforts. It is hoped that the current work can lead to more discussions about influence of data noise on different computational methods for mining disease genes.

Correcting for the study bias associated with protein–protein interaction measurements reveals differences between protein degree distributions from different cancer types

“…The observation that disease proteins have more interaction partners than non-disease proteins led to numerous computational studies using directly or indirectly the degree of a protein as a predictor for its function or disease relation (e.g., Xu and Li, 2006 ; Nie and Yu, 2013 ) that thereby might only reveal highly studied proteins that are more likely to be associated to the studied function anyway.…”

Sevoflurane-medicated the pathway of chemokine receptors bind chemokines in patients undergoing CABG

“…Network-based methods have many potential biological and clinical applications, including a better understanding of the effects of interconnection of disease genes and disease pathways, which, in turn, may offer better targets for drug development. So far, many methods have been created to integrate microarray profile with PPIN or pathway databases to identify key subnetwork markers for predicting clinical outcomes [23,24]. For example, network-based Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Network-Guided Forests (NGF) have been utilized to select a set of genes which maximize the prediction performance [25,26].…”

Identifying oncogenes as features for clinical cancer prognosis by Bayesian nonparametric variable selection algorithm

“…Although a few improved methods can generate a list with a small number of DEGs, it does not ensure the biological relevance of the DEGs to the phenotypic difference [5,10,11,15]. The network-based methodologies which rose in recent years can efficiently integrate the biology information into the procedure of gene selection and are successfully applied in the identification of prognostic genes [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. However, the construction of the networks in this kind of methodology needs a great deal of prior knowledge of genomics and proteomics, such as the seed oncogenes confirmed by previous experiments or the information of protein-protein interactions.…”