Shuonan Chen1, Jessica C Mar2,3,4. 1. Department of Systems and Computational Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA. 2. Department of Systems and Computational Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA. jessica.mar@einstein.yu.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA. jessica.mar@einstein.yu.edu. 4. Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. jessica.mar@einstein.yu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A fundamental fact in biology states that genes do not operate in isolation, and yet, methods that infer regulatory networks for single cell gene expression data have been slow to emerge. With single cell sequencing methods now becoming accessible, general network inference algorithms that were initially developed for data collected from bulk samples may not be suitable for single cells. Meanwhile, although methods that are specific for single cell data are now emerging, whether they have improved performance over general methods is unknown. In this study, we evaluate the applicability of five general methods and three single cell methods for inferring gene regulatory networks from both experimental single cell gene expression data and in silico simulated data. RESULTS: Standard evaluation metrics using ROC curves and Precision-Recall curves against reference sets sourced from the literature demonstrated that most of the methods performed poorly when they were applied to either experimental single cell data, or simulated single cell data, which demonstrates their lack of performance for this task. Using default settings, network methods were applied to the same datasets. Comparisons of the learned networks highlighted the uniqueness of some predicted edges for each method. The fact that different methods infer networks that vary substantially reflects the underlying mathematical rationale and assumptions that distinguish network methods from each other. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of network modeling algorithms applied to experimental single cell gene expression data and in silico simulated datasets where the network structure is known. Comparisons demonstrate that most of these assessed network methods are not able to predict network structures from single cell expression data accurately, even if they are specifically developed for single cell methods. Also, single cell methods, which usually depend on more elaborative algorithms, in general have less similarity to each other in the sets of edges detected. The results from this study emphasize the importance for developing more accurate optimized network modeling methods that are compatible for single cell data. Newly-developed single cell methods may uniquely capture particular features of potential gene-gene relationships, and caution should be taken when we interpret these results.
BACKGROUND: A fundamental fact in biology states that genes do not operate in isolation, and yet, methods that infer regulatory networks for single cell gene expression data have been slow to emerge. With single cell sequencing methods now becoming accessible, general network inference algorithms that were initially developed for data collected from bulk samples may not be suitable for single cells. Meanwhile, although methods that are specific for single cell data are now emerging, whether they have improved performance over general methods is unknown. In this study, we evaluate the applicability of five general methods and three single cell methods for inferring gene regulatory networks from both experimental single cell gene expression data and in silico simulated data. RESULTS: Standard evaluation metrics using ROC curves and Precision-Recall curves against reference sets sourced from the literature demonstrated that most of the methods performed poorly when they were applied to either experimental single cell data, or simulated single cell data, which demonstrates their lack of performance for this task. Using default settings, network methods were applied to the same datasets. Comparisons of the learned networks highlighted the uniqueness of some predicted edges for each method. The fact that different methods infer networks that vary substantially reflects the underlying mathematical rationale and assumptions that distinguish network methods from each other. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of network modeling algorithms applied to experimental single cell gene expression data and in silico simulated datasets where the network structure is known. Comparisons demonstrate that most of these assessed network methods are not able to predict network structures from single cell expression data accurately, even if they are specifically developed for single cell methods. Also, single cell methods, which usually depend on more elaborative algorithms, in general have less similarity to each other in the sets of edges detected. The results from this study emphasize the importance for developing more accurate optimized network modeling methods that are compatible for single cell data. Newly-developed single cell methods may uniquely capture particular features of potential gene-gene relationships, and caution should be taken when we interpret these results.
Authors: Daniel Marbach; James C Costello; Robert Küffner; Nicole M Vega; Robert J Prill; Diogo M Camacho; Kyle R Allison; Manolis Kellis; James J Collins; Gustavo Stolovitzky Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Pau Bellot; Catharina Olsen; Philippe Salembier; Albert Oliveras-Vergés; Patrick E Meyer Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Ning Leng; Li-Fang Chu; Chris Barry; Yuan Li; Jeea Choi; Xiaomao Li; Peng Jiang; Ron M Stewart; James A Thomson; Christina Kendziorski Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Greg Finak; Andrew McDavid; Masanao Yajima; Jingyuan Deng; Vivian Gersuk; Alex K Shalek; Chloe K Slichter; Hannah W Miller; M Juliana McElrath; Martin Prlic; Peter S Linsley; Raphael Gottardo Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Christopher A Jackson; Dayanne M Castro; Richard Bonneau; David Gresham; Giuseppe-Antonio Saldi Journal: Elife Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: John C Marioni; Jean Yee Hwa Yang; Shila Ghazanfar; Yingxin Lin; Xianbin Su; David Ming Lin; Ellis Patrick; Ze-Guang Han Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 28.547