| Literature DB >> 31736788 |
Sally Badawi1,2,3, Alexandre Paccalet1, Zeina Harhous1,2,3, Bruno Pillot1,2, Lionel Augeul1,2, Fabien Van Coppenolle1,2, Joel Lachuer4,5, Mazen Kurdi3, Claire Crola Da Silva1,2, Michel Ovize1,2, Gabriel Bidaux1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischemic heart diseases are a major cause of death worldwide. Different animal models, including cardiac surgery, have been developed over time. Unfortunately, the surgery models have been reported to trigger an important inflammatory response that might be an effect modifier, where involved molecular processes have not been fully elucidated yet.Entities:
Keywords: heart damage; inflammation; interleukin 6; kinetical analysis; transcriptomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31736788 PMCID: PMC6836931 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01370
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Differential analysis and gene ontology analysis. (A–C) represent principal component analysis (PCA) plots of the data clustered by surgeon (S1 and S2), batch (B1–B5), and time (0 min, 45 min, and 24 h), respectively. Batch corresponds to the different pools of library construction during sequencing. (D) Pie chart showing the major biological processes expressed as the percentage of GO terms detected in the gene ontology analysis of the differentially expressed transcripts list.
FIGURE 2Weighted gene co-expression network analysis. (A) Gene dendrogram representing the hierarchical clustering of transcripts based on their similarity in the expression profiles. Tree branches correspond to transcripts and colors underneath the tree corresponds to the modules assignment by Dynamic Tree Cut of the WGCNA package. (B) Heatmaps of the level of expression of transcripts assigned to examples of the three main time profile of transcripts expression: the magenta (M[1]), red (M[4]), and blue (M[7]) modules. Red color corresponds to higher expression and green color corresponds to lower expression. (C) Line graph representing the variation of the expression profiles in the different modules over time. Values represent the mean eigengenes figured out by WGCNA. The color code used is the same as in (A,B).
FIGURE 3Analysis of GO terms enrichment and characterization of immune cells. (A) Scatter plot of z-score and FDR of GO terms predicted from different transcripts modules (reported as [module number]) and combination of modules (reported as [module number; module number]). Values were filtered for FDR < 10– 4 and enrichment factor (z-score) > 2. (B) Bar graphs displaying the count of the filtered GO terms for different groups of transcripts modules and which are shared in the list of GO terms from DETs. Blue and green colors represent the enrichment score of the terms present in the DET’s GO terms list and the red color represents the unassigned terms (UA). (C) Bar graph showing which transcripts’ modules recapitulate the best GO terms observed in DETs. Each GO terms accounting in (B) were counted only once in the module showing the highest z-score value for this GO term. (D) Histogram plot representing the count of GO terms classified into bigger processes displayed by colors for all DETs and the different groups of modules. (E) Histogram plot representing the count of inflammation/immune response, cell signalization, and cell migration processes’ GO terms constituting some inflammatory transcripts of M[1;6;7] group of modules displayed by colors. (F) Dot plots showing the percentage of different cell populations: LY6g + neutrophils (top panel), CD206-/CD86-macrophages (middle panel) and M1, M2, and M1 + M2 macrophages (lower panel) at 0 min and 24 h post-surgery (∗P ≤ 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001).
FIGURE 4Transcription factor analysis and PPI networks simulation. (A) Scatter plot of z-score and F-score of the over-represented transcription factor binding site (TFBS) detected in genes of the DET list and generated by oPOSSUM. Only TFs with F-score above 20 are considered. TFs were classified by their z-score as depicted in the legend. (B) Heat map showing the growth of TF-PPI network size as calculated by the percentage of increase in the number of proteins at each step of network growth: +5, +10, +20, +30, and +40 neighbors (+5 N; +10 N; +20 N; +30 N; +40 N). TF-PPI networks were simulated from each different TFs groups as input. TFs group were: group 1 (z-score > | 35|), group 2 (z-score > | 25|), group 3 (z-score > | 15|), group 4 (z-score > | 10|), and group 5 (z-score > | 2|). (C) Heat map displaying the sensitivity of the networks based on the growth (increase in number of neighbors) and the input (groups of TFs) of TF-PPI. Color gradient displays the percentage of GO terms of all DETs shared with GO terms derived from TF-PPI network and values indicates the percentage. (D) Correlation matrix between the growth (increase in number of neighbors) and the input (groups of TFs) of TF-PPI networks reporting the specificity of the networks. Color gradient displays the percentage of GO terms of TF-PPI network shared with the DET-based GO terms and values indicates the percentage.
FIGURE 5Transcription factor analysis and PPI networks simulation. (A) TF-PPI network simulated by STRING from TFs group 3 and expanded for three layers (+20 neighbors). Line connections between proteins displaying the type of interaction. Red circle reports the central position of interleukin 6 in the network. (B) Pie chart showing the major biological processes expressed as the percentage of GO terms. GO terms predicted from the TF-PPI network shown in (A) and shared in the list of GO terms derived from were taken for this analysis. (C) Plot representing IL-6 concentration in the plasma of mice at 0 min, 45 min, and 24 h post-surgery (n = 6 per time point) (∗∗P ≤ 0.05).