skip to main content
10.1145/640075.640117acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecombConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Physical network models and multi-source data integration

Published:10 April 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

We develop a new framework for inferring models of transcriptional regulation. The models in this approach, which we call physical models, are constructed on the basis of verifiable molecular attributes of the underlying biological system. The attributes include, for example, the existence of protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions in gene regulatory processes, the directionality of signal transduction in protein-protein interactions, as well as the signs of the immediate effects of these interactions (e.g., whether an upstream gen activates or represses the downstream genes). Each attribute is included as a variable in the model, and the variables define a collection of annotated random graphs. Possible configurations of these variables (realizations of the underlying biological system) are constrained by the available data sources. Some of the data sources such as factor-binding data (location data) involve measurements that are directly tied to the variables in the model. Other sources such as gene knock-outs are functional in nature and provide only indirect evidence about the (physical) variables. We associate each knock-out effect in the deletion mutant data with a set of causal paths (molecular cascades) that could in principle explain the effect, resulting in aggregate constraints about the physical variables in the model. The most likely setting of all the variables is found by the max-product algorithm. By testing our approach on datasets related to the pheromone response pathway in S. cerevisiae, we demonstrate that the resulting transcriptional models are consistent with previous studies about the pathway. Moreover, we show that the approach is capable of predicting gene knock-out effects with high degree of accuracy in a cross-validation setting. The method also implicates likely molecular cascades responsible for each observed knock-out effect. The inference results are robust against variations in the model parameters. We can extend the approach to include other data sources such as time course expression profiles. We also discuss coordinated regulation and the use of automated experiment design

References

  1. B. Frey and D. MacKay. AR evolution : Belief Propagation in Graphs with Cycles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 479--485, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Hartemink, D. Gi.ord, T. Jaakkola, and R. Young. Combining Location and Expression Data for Principled Discovery of Genetic Regulatory Network Models. In PSB Proceedings, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Hughes, M. Marton, A . Jones, C. Roberts, R. Stoughton, C. Armour, H. Bennett, E. Coffey, H. Dai, Y. He, M. Kidd, A. King, M. Meyer, D. Stade, P. Lum, S. Stepaniants, D. Shoemaker, D. Gachotte, K. Chakraburtty, J. Simon, M. Bard, and S. Friend. Functional Discovery via a Compendium of Expression Pro.les. Cell, 102:109--126, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. T. Ideker, V. Thorsson, J. Ranish, R. Christmas, J. Buhler, J. Eng, R. Bumgarner, D. Goodlett, R. Aebersold, and L. Hood. Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analysis of a Systematically Perturbed Metabolic Network. Science, 292:929--934, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. F. Kschischang, B. Frey, and H. Loeliger. Factor Graphs and the Sum-Product Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(2):498--519, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. Lee, N. Rinaldi, F. Robert, D. Odom, Z. Bar-Joseph, G. Gerber, N. Hannett, C. Harbison, C. Thompson, I. Simon, J. Zeitlinger, E. Jennings, H. Murray, D. Gordon, B. Ren, J. Wyrick, J. Tagne, T. Volkert, D. G. E. Fraenkel and, and R. Young. Transcriptional Regulatory Networks in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Science, 298:799--804, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Lohr, P. Venkov, and J. Zlatanova. Transcriptional Regulation in Yeast GAL Gene Family: a Complex Genetic Network. FASEB Journal, 9:777--787, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. Ren, F. Robert, J. Wyrick, O. Aparicio, E. Jennings, I. Simon, J. Zeitlinger, J. Schreiber, N. Hannett, E. Kanin, T. Volkert, C. Wilson, S. Bell, and R. Young. Genome-wide Location and Function of DNA-binding Proteins. Science, 290:2306--2309, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. Segal, Y. Barash, I. Simon, N. Friedman, and D. Koller. From Promoter Sequence to Expression: A Probabilistic Framework. In RECOMB Proceedings, pages 263--272, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. Uetz, L. Giot, G. Cagney, T. Mansfield, R. Judson, J. Knight, D. Lockshon, V. Narayan, M. Srinivasan, P. Pochart, A. Qureshi-Emili, Y. Li, B. Godwin, D. Conover, T. Kalb.eisch, G. Vijayadamodar, M. Yang, M. Johnston, S. Fields, and J.M.Rothberg. AComp rehensive Analysis of Protein-Protein Interactions in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Nature, 403:623--627, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Wainwright, T. Jaakkola, and A. Wilsky. Exact MAP Estimates by (Hyper)Tree Agreement. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Y. Weiss and W. Freeman. Correctness of Belief Propagation in Gaussian Graphical Models of Arbitrary Topology. Neural Computation, 13:2173--2200, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Y. Weiss and W. Freeman. On the Optimality Solutions of the Max-Product Belief Propagation Algorithm in Arbitrary Graphs. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47:736--744, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Yedidia, W. Freeman, and Y. Weiss. Generalized Belief Propagation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 13, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Physical network models and multi-source data integration

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      RECOMB '03: Proceedings of the seventh annual international conference on Research in computational molecular biology
      April 2003
      352 pages
      ISBN:1581136358
      DOI:10.1145/640075

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 April 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      RECOMB '03 Paper Acceptance Rate35of175submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate148of538submissions,28%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader