| Literature DB >> 28797245 |
João Pedro Saraiva1,2, Marcus Oswald1,2, Antje Biering1,2, Daniela Röll1,2, Cora Assmann3, Tilman Klassert3, Markus Blaess2, Kristin Czakai4, Ralf Claus2, Jürgen Löffler4, Hortense Slevogt3, Rainer König5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human immune system is responsible for protecting the host from infection. However, in immunocompromised individuals the risk of infection increases substantially with possible drastic consequences. In extreme, systemic infection can lead to sepsis which is responsible for innumerous deaths worldwide. Amongst its causes are infections by bacteria and fungi. To increase survival, it is mandatory to identify the type of infection rapidly. Discriminating between fungal and bacterial pathogens is key to determine if antifungals or antibiotics should be administered, respectively. For this, in situ experiments have been performed to determine regulation mechanisms of the human immune system to identify biomarkers. However, these studies led to heterogeneous results either due different laboratory settings, pathogen strains, cell types and tissues, as well as the time of sample extraction, to name a few.Entities:
Keywords: Feature selection; Fungal pathogens; Immune response; Microarray; Systems biology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28797245 PMCID: PMC5553868 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-4006-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 1The upper two SVMs maximize the margin independently. The lower two SVMs maximize the sum of the two margins, but are constrained to use the same set of genes for features. Obviously the margins cannot increase but note that the overall SVM efficiencies were as good as before after applying these conditions.
Fig. 2Benchmark results were compared to the combined approach by intersecting the gene lists of each combination which contained one of the datasets (here exemplarily shown for Smeekens) with each combination containing the other dataset (here: Klassert). We did not consider the intersections, highlighted in red, in which one of the datasets occurred on both “sides” of the combination (e.g. combinations Klassert & Czakai versus Smeekens & Czakai; or Dix & Klassert versus Smeekens & Dix)
Refined list of biomarker genes and their regulation across the investigated datasets
| Gene | Dix | Smeekens | Saraiva | Klassert | Czakai | Average N° runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HMOX1 | 1** | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 71 |
| CCR1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 61 |
| GLA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 48 |
| TNFSF14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 60 |
| TBC1D7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 65 |
| SPRY2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 63 |
| EGR2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 60 |
| BCAR3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 59 |
| PAPSS1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 58 |
| RRAGD | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 55 |
| DHRS9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 54 |
| SDSL | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 53 |
| RNF144B | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 67 |
| ADA | −1 | −1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 56 |
| SCARB2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 64 |
| SOWAHC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 55 |
| BLVRA | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 64 |
| EDN1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 97 |
| TNFSF15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 53 |
**1: up-regulated, −1: down-regulated, in fungal versus bacterial infected immune cells
Single and combined classifier gene lists
| Intersection of combined and single classifiers | Combined only |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Performance using our identified gene signature on unseen data
| Dix | Klassert | Smeekens | Czakai | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.71 | 0.83 | 1 | 0.63 | 0.79 |
| Specificity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PPV | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| NPV | 0.67 | 0.83 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.75 |
| Accuracy | 0.82 | 0.91 | 1 | 0.73 | 0.87 |