| Literature DB >> 21673799 |
Hsiuying Wang1, Henry Horng-Shing Lu, Tung-Hung Chueh.
Abstract
Networks are widely used in biology to represent the relationships between genes and gene functions. In Boolean biological models, it is mainly assumed that there are two states to represent a gene: on-state and off-state. It is typically assumed that the relationship between two genes can be characterized by two kinds of pairwise relationships: similarity and prerequisite. Many approaches have been proposed in the literature to reconstruct biological relationships. In this article, we propose a two-step method to reconstruct the biological pathway when the binary array data have measurement error. For a pair of genes in a sample, the first step of this approach is to assign counting numbers for every relationship and select the relationship with counting number greater than a threshold. The second step is to calculate the asymptotic p-values for hypotheses of possible relationships and select relationships with a large p-value. This new method has the advantages of easy calculation for the counting numbers and simple closed forms for the p-value. The simulation study and real data example show that the two-step counting method can accurately reconstruct the biological pathway and outperform the existing methods. Compared with the other existing methods, this two-step method can provide a more accurate and efficient alternative approach for reconstructing the biological network.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21673799 PMCID: PMC3105984 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The PKC pathway in yeast.
This figure is redrawn from Figure 1A in [1].
Figure 2Diagram of a directed acyclic Boolean network with seven elements and twelve pair relationships.
Only arrows between covering pairs are shown.
The table of states for directed acyclic Boolean network shown in Figure 2.
| case | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| A | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| D | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| E | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| G | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Patterns for the six pairwise relationships assuming exhaustive sampling and no measurement error.
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 |
| 0 | + | − | 0 | − | + | 0 | + | − |
| 1 | − | + | 1 | + | − | 1 | + | + |
The six pairwise between the two elements and .
| Relationship | Hypothesis | |
| diagonal |
|
|
| similarity |
|
|
|
|
| |
| triangular |
|
|
| prerequisite |
|
|
|
|
|
Splitting counts caused by misclassification error.
| A/B | 0 | 1 | ||
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Splitting probabilities caused by misclassification error.
| A/B | 0 | 1 | ||
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The counting numbers for the 21 pairs in the 100 states under each relationship.
| hypothesis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (A, B) | 55 | 45 | 98 | 57 | 90 | 55 |
| (A, C) | 72 | 28 | 95 | 77 | 93 | 35 |
| (A, D) | 51 | 49 | 93 | 58 | 95 | 54 |
| (A, E) | 56 | 44 | 98 | 58 | 90 | 54 |
| (A, F) | 54 | 46 | 98 | 56 | 90 | 56 |
| (A, G) | 26 | 74 | 99 | 27 | 89 | 85 |
| (B, C) | 51 | 49 | 64 | 87 | 83 | 66 |
| (B, D) | 46 | 54 | 70 | 76 | 77 | 77 |
| (B, E) | 91 | 9 | 95 | 96 | 52 | 57 |
| (B, F) | 51 | 49 | 76 | 75 | 71 | 78 |
| (B, G) | 53 | 47 | 92 | 61 | 55 | 92 |
| (C, D) | 35 | 65 | 76 | 59 | 94 | 71 |
| (C, E) | 50 | 50 | 86 | 64 | 84 | 66 |
| (C, F) | 72 | 28 | 98 | 74 | 72 | 56 |
| (C, G) | 42 | 58 | 98 | 44 | 72 | 86 |
| (D, E) | 43 | 57 | 74 | 69 | 79 | 78 |
| (D, F) | 37 | 63 | 72 | 65 | 81 | 82 |
| (D, G) | 37 | 63 | 87 | 50 | 66 | 97 |
| (E, F) | 50 | 50 | 76 | 74 | 72 | 78 |
| (E, G) | 52 | 48 | 92 | 60 | 56 | 92 |
| (F, G) | 66 | 34 | 98 | 68 | 48 | 86 |
The p-values for the 21 pairs in the 100 states under each relationship.
| hypothesis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (A, B) | 0.8207 | 0.0065 | 1 | 0 | 0.1358 | 0 |
| (A, C) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0095 | 0.0680 | 0 |
| (A, D) | 0.1330 | 0.1511 | 0.7931 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| (A, E) | 0.9228 | 0.0046 | 1 | 0 | 0.1201 | 0 |
| (A, F) | 0.7200 | 0.0092 | 1 | 0 | 0.1527 | 0 |
| (A, G) | 0 | 0.6534 | 1 | 1 | 0.7599 | 0.3630 |
| (B, C) | 0.9149 | 0.4654 | 0.0060 | 1 | 0.7636 | 0.0152 |
| (B, D) | 0.4237 | 1 | 0.6569 | 0.6504 | 0.9855 | 0.9855 |
| (B, E) | 1 | 0 | 0.8094 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (B, F) | 0.9994 | 0.8352 | 0.9990 | 0.9065 | 0.9118 | 0.9189 |
| (B, G) | 0.4376 | 0.1168 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.8556 |
| (C, D) | 0.0004 | 1 | 0.0268 | 0 | 1 | 0.0025 |
| (C, E) | 0.7452 | 0.6280 | 1 | 0.0058 | 0.9122 | 0.0165 |
| (C, F) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0005 | 0.0014 | 0 |
| (C, G) | 0.0724 | 0.1689 | 1 | 0 | 0.0070 | 0.3746 |
| (D, E) | 0.1613 | 1 | 0.4171 | 0.4297 | 1 | 0.9031 |
| (D, F) | 0.0093 | 1 | 0.1226 | 0.1554 | 0.8975 | 1 |
| (D, G) | 0.0003 | 1 | 0.0377 | 0 | 0.0001 | 1 |
| (E, F) | 0.9367 | 0.9716 | 0.9702 | 0.7834 | 0.9965 | 0.9993 |
| (E, G) | 0.3662 | 0.1523 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.9043 |
| (F, G) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0001 | 0 | 0.0110 |
Figure 3Some pairwise relationships identified by the two-steps counting approach (a), and the Li and Lu method (b) using the expression data of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.