Christoph Hafemeister1, Roberto Romero1, Erhan Bilal1, Pablo Meyer1, Raquel Norel1, Kahn Rhrissorrakrai1, Richard Bonneau2, Adi L Tarca2. 1. Department of Biology, Center for Genomics & Systems Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, Perinatology Research Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI 48201, USA, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, Computer Science Department, Courant institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY 10012 and Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA. 2. Department of Biology, Center for Genomics & Systems Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, Perinatology Research Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI 48201, USA, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, Computer Science Department, Courant institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY 10012 and Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA Department of Biology, Center for Genomics & Systems Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, Perinatology Research Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI 48201, USA, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, Computer Science Department, Courant institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY 10012 and Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Experiments in animal models are often conducted to infer how humans will respond to stimuli by assuming that the same biological pathways will be affected in both organisms. The limitations of this assumption were tested in the IMPROVER Species Translation Challenge, where 52 stimuli were applied to both human and rat cells and perturbed pathways were identified. In the Inter-species Pathway Perturbation Prediction sub-challenge, multiple teams proposed methods to use rat transcription data from 26 stimuli to predict human gene set and pathway activity under the same perturbations. Submissions were evaluated using three performance metrics on data from the remaining 26 stimuli. RESULTS: We present two approaches, ranked second in this challenge, that do not rely on sequence-based orthology between rat and human genes to translate pathway perturbation state but instead identify transcriptional response orthologs across a set of training conditions. The translation from rat to human accomplished by these so-called direct methods is not dependent on the particular analysis method used to identify perturbed gene sets. In contrast, machine learning-based methods require performing a pathway analysis initially and then mapping the pathway activity between organisms. Unlike most machine learning approaches, direct methods can be used to predict the activation of a human pathway for a new (test) stimuli, even when that pathway was never activated by a training stimuli. AVAILABILITY: Gene expression data are available from ArrayExpress (accession E-MTAB-2091), while software implementations are available from http://bioinformaticsprb.med.wayne.edu?p=50 and http://goo.gl/hJny3h. CONTACT: christoph.hafemeister@nyu.edu or atarca@med.wayne.edu. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Published by Oxford University Press 2014. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
MOTIVATION: Experiments in animal models are often conducted to infer how humans will respond to stimuli by assuming that the same biological pathways will be affected in both organisms. The limitations of this assumption were tested in the IMPROVER Species Translation Challenge, where 52 stimuli were applied to both human and rat cells and perturbed pathways were identified. In the Inter-species Pathway Perturbation Prediction sub-challenge, multiple teams proposed methods to use rat transcription data from 26 stimuli to predict human gene set and pathway activity under the same perturbations. Submissions were evaluated using three performance metrics on data from the remaining 26 stimuli. RESULTS: We present two approaches, ranked second in this challenge, that do not rely on sequence-based orthology between rat and human genes to translate pathway perturbation state but instead identify transcriptional response orthologs across a set of training conditions. The translation from rat to human accomplished by these so-called direct methods is not dependent on the particular analysis method used to identify perturbed gene sets. In contrast, machine learning-based methods require performing a pathway analysis initially and then mapping the pathway activity between organisms. Unlike most machine learning approaches, direct methods can be used to predict the activation of a human pathway for a new (test) stimuli, even when that pathway was never activated by a training stimuli. AVAILABILITY: Gene expression data are available from ArrayExpress (accession E-MTAB-2091), while software implementations are available from http://bioinformaticsprb.med.wayne.edu?p=50 and http://goo.gl/hJny3h. CONTACT: christoph.hafemeister@nyu.edu or atarca@med.wayne.edu. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Published by Oxford University Press 2014. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Peter Waltman; Thadeous Kacmarczyk; Ashley R Bate; Daniel B Kearns; David J Reiss; Patrick Eichenberger; Richard Bonneau Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Junhee Seok; H Shaw Warren; Alex G Cuenca; Michael N Mindrinos; Henry V Baker; Weihong Xu; Daniel R Richards; Grace P McDonald-Smith; Hong Gao; Laura Hennessy; Celeste C Finnerty; Cecilia M López; Shari Honari; Ernest E Moore; Joseph P Minei; Joseph Cuschieri; Paul E Bankey; Jeffrey L Johnson; Jason Sperry; Avery B Nathens; Timothy R Billiar; Michael A West; Marc G Jeschke; Matthew B Klein; Richard L Gamelli; Nicole S Gibran; Bernard H Brownstein; Carol Miller-Graziano; Steve E Calvano; Philip H Mason; J Perren Cobb; Laurence G Rahme; Stephen F Lowry; Ronald V Maier; Lyle L Moldawer; David N Herndon; Ronald W Davis; Wenzhong Xiao; Ronald G Tompkins Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joëlle Michaud; Ken M Simpson; Robert Escher; Karine Buchet-Poyau; Tim Beissbarth; Catherine Carmichael; Matthew E Ritchie; Frédéric Schütz; Ping Cannon; Marjorie Liu; Xiaofeng Shen; Yoshiaki Ito; Wendy H Raskind; Marshall S Horwitz; Motomi Osato; David R Turner; Terence P Speed; Maria Kavallaris; Gordon K Smyth; Hamish S Scott Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Carine Poussin; Carole Mathis; Leonidas G Alexopoulos; Dimitris E Messinis; Rémi H J Dulize; Vincenzo Belcastro; Ioannis N Melas; Theodore Sakellaropoulos; Kahn Rhrissorrakrai; Erhan Bilal; Pablo Meyer; Marja Talikka; Stéphanie Boué; Raquel Norel; John J Rice; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Nikolai V Ivanov; Manuel C Peitsch; Julia Hoeng Journal: Sci Data Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Ömer Sinan Saraç; Rahul Kumar; Sandeep Kumar Dhanda; Ali Tuğrul Balcı; İsmail Bilgen; Roberto Romero; Adi L Tarca Journal: Comput Toxicol Date: 2017-04-28
Authors: Jarrod S Johnson; Nicholas De Veaux; Alexander W Rives; Xavier Lahaye; Sasha Y Lucas; Brieuc P Perot; Marine Luka; Victor Garcia-Paredes; Lynn M Amon; Aaron Watters; Ghaith Abdessalem; Alan Aderem; Nicolas Manel; Dan R Littman; Richard Bonneau; Mickaël M Ménager Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 9.423