| Literature DB >> 23951366 |
Fabio Coppedè1, Enzo Grossi, Massimo Buscema, Lucia Migliore.
Abstract
Folate metabolism, also known as one-carbon metabolism, is required for several cellular processes including DNA synthesis, repair and methylation. Impairments of this pathway have been often linked to Alzheimer's disease (AD). In addition, increasing evidence from large scale case-control studies, genome-wide association studies, and meta-analyses of the literature suggest that polymorphisms of genes involved in one-carbon metabolism influence the levels of folate, homocysteine and vitamin B12, and might be among AD risk factors. We analyzed a dataset of 30 genetic and biochemical variables (folate, homocysteine, vitamin B12, and 27 genotypes generated by nine common biallelic polymorphisms of genes involved in folate metabolism) obtained from 40 late-onset AD patients and 40 matched controls to assess the predictive capacity of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) in distinguish consistently these two different conditions and to identify the variables expressing the maximal amount of relevant information to the condition of being affected by dementia of Alzheimer's type. Moreover, we constructed a semantic connectivity map to offer some insight regarding the complex biological connections among the studied variables and the two conditions (being AD or control). TWIST system, an evolutionary algorithm able to remove redundant and noisy information from complex data sets, selected 16 variables that allowed specialized ANNs to discriminate between AD and control subjects with over 90% accuracy. The semantic connectivity map provided important information on the complex biological connections among one-carbon metabolic variables highlighting those most closely linked to the AD condition.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23951366 PMCID: PMC3741132 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Overview of the folate metabolic pathway, adapted from [18].
Folates require several transport systems to enter the cells, the best characterized being the reduced folate carrier (RFC1). Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) reduces 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate (5,10-MTHF) to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF). Subsequently, methionine synthase (MTR) transfers a methyl group from 5-MTHF to homocysteine (Hcy) forming methionine (Met) and tetrahydrofolate (THF). Methionine is then converted to S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) in a reaction catalyzed by methionine adenosyltransferase (MAT). Most of the SAM generated is used in transmethylation reactions, whereby SAM is converted to S-adenosylhomocysteine (SAH) by DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) that transfer the methyl group to the DNA. Vitamin B12 is a cofactor of MTR, and methionine synthase reductase (MTRR) is required for the maintenance of MTR in its active state. If not converted into methionine, Hcy can be used for the synthesis of glutathione (GSH) in a reaction catalyzed by cystathionine b-synthase (CBS) and other enzymes. Another important function of folate derivatives (THF and dihydrofolate: DHF) is in the de novo synthesis of DNA and RNA precursors (dUMP, dTMP, etc). This pathway is mediated by thymidylate synthase (TYMS), methylenetetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase (MTHFD), and phosphoribosylglycinamide transformylase (GART) enzymes.
Distribution of selected variables among cases and controls.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | 95% C.I. | Mean | 95% C.I. | |
| Folates (ng/ml) | 6.2 | 1.8 | 6.8 | 1.2 | N.S. |
| Homocysteine (μmol/l) | 22.3 | 4.7 | 16.2 | 1.7 | <0.01 |
| Vitamin B12 (pg/ml) | 401.3 | 78.2 | 404.9 | 73.5 | N.S |
|
| 28% | 14% | 38% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 40% | 16% | 47% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 32% | 15% | 15% | 12% | N.S |
|
| 45% | 16% | 60% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 55% | 16% | 40% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | N.S |
|
| 32% | 15% | 20% | 13% | N.S |
|
| 45% | 16% | 57% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 23% | 14% | 23% | 14% | N.S |
|
| 15% | 12% | 35% | 15% | N.S |
|
| 57% | 16% | 53% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 28% | 14% | 13% | 11% | N.S |
|
| 23% | 14% | 25% | 14% | N.S |
|
| 43% | 16% | 52% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 35% | 15% | 23% | 14% | N.S |
|
| 82% | 12% | 87% | 11% | N.S |
|
| 15% | 12% | 13% | 11% | N.S |
|
| 3% | 5% | 0% | 0% | N.S |
|
| 22% | 14% | 10% | 10% | N.S |
|
| 60% | 16% | 62% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 18% | 12% | 28% | 14% | N.S |
|
| 45% | 16% | 50% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 47% | 16% | 40% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 8% | 9% | 10% | 10% | N.S |
|
| 48% | 16% | 62% | 16% | N.S |
|
| 47% | 16% | 28% | 14% | N.S |
|
| 5% | 7% | 10% | 10% | N.S |
Figure 2Method of coding the polymorphisms in the database.
The code assigned to the polymorphisms transformed each polymorphism in three genotype classes: wild type (major homozygous), heterozygous and mutants (minor homozygous). For each class a binary coding was applied: 0 if variable absent; 1 if variable present. So for example considering the polymorphism MTRR 66A>G which can exist in three variants: AA (major homozygous), AG (heterozygous) and GG (minor homozygous). Supposing that three records are AA, GG and AG, the coding has been applied as shown in the figure.
Learning Machine used in this application.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| AdaBoostM1 | AdaBoost | [ | WEKA |
| Bagging | Bagging | [ | WEKA |
| BayesNet | BayesNet | [ | WEKA |
| KNN | IBk | [ | WEKA |
| C4.5 | J48 | [ | WEKA |
| KStar | KStar | [ | WEKA |
| Logistic | Logistic | [ | WEKA |
| LogitBoost | LogitBoost | [ | WEKA |
| MultiLayer Perceptron | MLP | [ | WEKA |
| NaivBayes | NaivBayes | [ | WEKA |
| RandomForest | RandomForest | [ | WEKA |
| RotationForest | RotationForest | [ | WEKA |
| Sequential Minimal Optimization | SMO | [ | WEKA |
| Self Momentum BackPropagation | FF_BP | [ | Semeion |
| Sine Net | FF_SN | [ | Semeion |
The 16 variables selected by TWIST algorithm.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Folates | Folates |
| Homocysteine | Homocysteine |
| Vit_B12_pg/Ml | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of K-Fold protocol using all the 30 variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Logistic | 65.00% | 57.50% | 61.25% | 61.25% | 31 |
| RotationForest | 60.00% | 60.00% | 60.00% | 60.00% | 32 |
| SMO | 60.00% | 57.50% | 58.75% | 58.75% | 33 |
| J48 | 62.50% | 52.50% | 57.50% | 57.50% | 34 |
| MLP | 60.00% | 55.00% | 57.50% | 57.50% | 34 |
| NaiveBayes | 77.50% | 35.00% | 56.25% | 56.25% | 35 |
| RandomForest | 62.50% | 50.00% | 56.25% | 56.25% | 35 |
| IBk | 60.00% | 50.00% | 55.00% | 55.00% | 36 |
| AdaBoostM1 | 65.00% | 40.00% | 52.50% | 52.50% | 38 |
| KStar | 60.00% | 45.00% | 52.50% | 52.50% | 38 |
| Bagging | 55.00% | 45.00% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 40 |
| LogitBoost | 50.00% | 47.50% | 48.75% | 48.75% | 41 |
| BayesNet | 87.50% | 7.50% | 47.50% | 47.50% | 42 |
Semeion ANNs are in bold
Results of random split protocol using all the 30 variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Logistic | 70.00% | 57.50% | 63.75% | 63.75% | 29 |
| LogitBoost | 57.50% | 70.00% | 63.75% | 63.75% | 29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NaivBayes | 67.50% | 45.00% | 56.25% | 56.25% | 35 |
| AdaBoost | 52.50% | 55.00% | 53.75% | 53.75% | 37 |
| MLP | 65.00% | 37.50% | 51.25% | 51.25% | 39 |
| RandomForest | 72.50% | 30.00% | 51.25% | 51.25% | 39 |
| BayesNet | 100.00% | 0.00% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 40 |
| J48 | 62.50% | 37.50% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 40 |
| SMO | 62.50% | 37.50% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 40 |
| IBk | 65.00% | 32.50% | 48.75% | 48.75% | 41 |
| KStar | 57.50% | 37.50% | 47.50% | 47.50% | 42 |
| Bagging | 45.00% | 45.00% | 45.00% | 45.00% | 44 |
| RotationForest | 60.00% | 30.00% | 45.00% | 45.00% | 44 |
Semeion ANNs are in bold
Results with the K-Fold protocol using the 16 variables selected by TWIST algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IBk | 77.50% | 65.00% | 71.25% | 71.25% | 23 |
| MLP | 67.50% | 72.50% | 70.00% | 70.00% | 24 |
| RotationForest | 70.00% | 70.00% | 70.00% | 70.00% | 24 |
| J48 | 57.50% | 70.00% | 63.75% | 63.75% | 29 |
| Logistic | 62.50% | 60.00% | 61.25% | 61.25% | 31 |
| SMO | 57.50% | 65.00% | 61.25% | 61.25% | 31 |
| KStar | 67.50% | 52.50% | 60.00% | 60.00% | 32 |
| LogitBoost | 62.50% | 52.50% | 57.50% | 57.50% | 34 |
| NaiveBayes | 70.00% | 45.00% | 57.50% | 57.50% | 34 |
| RandomForest | 70.00% | 45.00% | 57.50% | 57.50% | 34 |
| AdaBoostM1 | 57.50% | 52.50% | 55.00% | 55.00% | 36 |
| Bagging | 60.00% | 42.50% | 51.25% | 51.25% | 39 |
| BayesNet | 87.50% | 7.50% | 47.50% | 47.50% | 42 |
Semeion ANNs are in bold
Results with the two subsets generated by TWIST using the 16 variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IBk | 96.00% | 89.72% | 92.86% | 92.33% | 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MLP | 78.00% | 75.19% | 76.59% | 76.66% | 19 |
| J48 | 74.67% | 74.94% | 74.80% | 74.81% | 20 |
| RotationForest | 75.33% | 72.06% | 73.69% | 72.63% | 22 |
| Logisitc | 70.67% | 69.92% | 70.30% | 70.08% | 24 |
| KStar | 68.00% | 69.67% | 68.84% | 67.90% | 26 |
| RandomForest | 86.67% | 42.23% | 64.45% | 63.49% | 29 |
| AdaBoost | 72.67% | 46.74% | 59.70% | 58.70% | 32 |
| Bagging | 66.67% | 56.27% | 61.47% | 58.76% | 33 |
| LogitBoost | 68.67% | 49.62% | 59.15% | 58.38% | 33 |
| NaiveBayes | 71.33% | 49.62% | 60.48% | 59.14% | 33 |
| SMO | 56.00% | 63.03% | 59.52% | 59.91% | 33 |
| BayesNet | 50.00% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 44.88% | 44 |
Semeion ANNs are in bold,
The number of errors is the summation of the error performed in testing phase using both the subsets.
Figure 3Semantic connectivity map obtained with Auto-Cm System.
The figures on the arches of the graph refer to the strength of the association between two adjacent nodes. The range of this value is from 0 to 1.