| Literature DB >> 36185577 |
Lihua Zhang1, Yuanyuan Zhao1, Li Li1, Huadong Xin1.
Abstract
In order to solve the problem of early differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer, this paper proposes the role of bioinformatics analysis in early differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer. This method uses bioinformatics methods to mine the existing data in the tumor database and obtain tumor-related molecules. It is an efficient method to obtain effective biomarkers, screen signal pathway molecules, and reveal the internal mechanism of tumor occurrence and development. Using this method can greatly improve the efficiency and reliability of screening diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment targets. The results showed that 5821 new lncRNA transcripts and 4611 new lncRNA genes were identified by lncScore from the assembled transcripts. 10 new lncRNA transcripts and 174 new lncRNA genes were found to be differentially expressed in ovarian cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36185577 PMCID: PMC9507672 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6129817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Role of bioinformatics analysis in early differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
Summary of five datasets used in this study.
| Data name | Nature of measurement | Number of molecules | Category 1 | Category 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBPCANN | Evaluation of carcinogenicity of disinfectant | 182 | 77 | 96 |
| Center | Androgen receptor binding | 222 | 137 | 92 |
| EPAFHM | Acute toxicity of black-headed minnow | 589 | 301 | 287 |
| CPDBAS | Carcinogenic intensity | 665 | 319 | 346 |
| FDAMDD | Maximum recommended daily human dose | 803 | 361 | 452 |
Prediction results of the 5-fold interactive test of SVM based on SMILES string kernel on five datasets.
| Dataset | TP | FN | TN | FP | SE | SP | ACC | MCC | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBPCANN | 78 | 3 | 54 | 12 | 97.77 | 88.67 | 86.21 | 81.47 | 89.39 |
| Center | 124 | 20 | 88 | 19 | 84.74 | 88.49 | 90.22 | 70.08 | 97.01 |
| EPAFHM | 214 | 67 | 187 | 112 | 75.72 | 64.54 | 70.02 | 42.02 | 84.87 |
| CPDBAS | 264 | 92 | 276 | 65 | 69.36 | 82.68 | 72.34 | 54.05 | 87.04 |
| FDAMDD | 278 | 84 | 325 | 91 | 79.17 | 79.67 | 77.98 | 66.01 | 89.37 |
Figure 2ROC curve predicted on five datasets by SVM based on SMILES string kernel.
Prediction results of SVM based on SMILES string kernel on the independent verification set.
| Dataset | TP | FN | TN | FP | SE | SP | ACC | MCC | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBPCANN | 21 | 4 | 17 | 1 | 91.78 | 89.04 | 89.71 | 82.01 | 89.71 |
| Center | 38 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 87.12 | 72.47 | 87.01 | 34.27 | 88.71 |
| EPAFHM | 43 | 19 | 42 | 24 | 76.37 | 63.24 | 70.01 | 40.24 | 74.14 |
| CPDBAS | 57 | 21 | 68 | 18 | 72.01 | 80.99 | 72.41 | 57.14 | 82.27 |
| FDAMDD | 84 | 37 | 73 | 21 | 78.04 | 76.27 | 78.01 | 57.34 | 87.01 |
Prediction results based on the 5-fold interaction test and common molecular descriptors.
| Dataset | TP | FN | TN | FP | SE | SP | ACC | MCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBPCANN | 87 | 8 | 64 | 7 | 97.14 | 87.97 | 91.31 | 86.29 |
| Center | 148 | 14 | 67 | 104 | 88.17 | 74.77 | 84.87 | 66.39 |
| EPAFHM | 207 | 71 | 169 | 102 | 73.24 | 65.37 | 70.29 | 40.41 |
| CPDBAS | 227 | 78 | 247 | 79 | 73.87 | 72.24 | 76.24 | 50.27 |
| FDAMDD | 249 | 91 | 347 | 67 | 73.87 | 83.17 | 77.24 | 58.14 |
Prediction results of the new interaction test of two modeling methods.
| Dataset | TP | FN | TN | FP | SE | SP | ACC | MCC | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIA | 114 | 16 | 40 | 25 | 87.70 | 61.54 | 78.97 | 51.29 | 84.43 |
| 110 | 20 | 44 | 21 | 84.62 | 67.69 | 78.97 | 52.52 | 83.78 | |
|
| |||||||||
| P-gP | 98 | 17 | 67 | 18 | 85.22 | 78.82 | 82.50 | 64.14 | 86.99 |
| 98 | 17 | 62 | 23 | 85.22 | 72.94 | 80.00 | 58.81 | 85.94 | |
|
| |||||||||
| TdP | 52 | 33 | 239 | 36 | 61.18 | 86.91 | 80.83 | 47.52 | 83.31 |
| 43 | 42 | 252 | 23 | 50.59 | 91.64 | 81.94 | 46.43 | 81.85 | |
Figure 3KPCA + LSVM two-step algorithm flow chart.
Figure 4Flow chart of variable selection based on the integrated algorithm of decision tree.
Prediction results of different decision tree integration methods on all features.
| Dataset | CART | Bagging | RF | Boosting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIA | 72.87 (2.81) | 78.37 (1.79) | 79.64 (1.09) | 80.57 (1.77) |
| P-gP | 68.79 (2.87) | 79.15 (2.77) | 80.19 (1.71) | 81.01 (1.57) |
| TdP | 81.01 (1.21) | 83.17 (0.81) | 83.63 (0.37) | 84.40 (0.34) |
| MDRR | 77.33 (1.88) | 82.44 (0.73) | 83.14 (0.57) | 83.47 (0.37) |
| BBB | 72.07 (2.21) | 76.01 (1.01) | 76.03 (1.19) | 78.72 (0.67) |
| Factor Xa | 92.21 (0.91) | 94.72 (1.12) | 93.44 (0.55) | 95.37 (0.49) |
| Average | 77.03 | 82.34 | 82.64 | 83.77 |
Prediction results of the decision tree integration method on different feature sets.
| Dataset | All descriptors | Select descriptor | All descriptors | Select descriptor | All descriptors | Select descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIA | 78.17 | 82.34 | 79.74 | 82.15 | 80.78 | 84.31 |
| P-gP | 79.23 | 81.74 | 80.15 | 82.74 | 80.71 | 81.89 |
| TdP | 83.14 | 85.24 | 83.13 | 84.52 | 84.14 | 87.65 |
| MDRR | 81.99 | 83.41 | 83.05 | 83.17 | 83.84 | 85.49 |
| BBB | 75.97 | 81.05 | 78.13 | 78.99 | 79.68 | 80.17 |
| Factor Xa | 93.17 | 95.40 | 92.19 | 95.54 | 94.34 | 96.17 |
| Average | 82.97 | 83.77 | 81.78 | 84.88 | 81.95 | 85.12 |
Prediction results of fisaRF and RF on DBPCANN data.
| Number of descriptors | Prediction accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | MCC value | AUC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | fisaRF | RF | fisaRF | RF | fisaRF | RF | fisaRF | RF | fisaRF | |
| 153 | 90.41 | 92.21 | 87.18 | 84.17 | 92.42 | 97.17 | 77.81 | 84.21 | 96.87 | 97.11 |
| 438 | 88.09 | 91.08 | 85.63 | 89.02 | 87.67 | 96.71 | 79.32 | 84.27 | 97.03 | 97.78 |
| 1458 | 88.12 | 92.27 | 87.51 | 87.17 | 90.27 | 97.37 | 78.88 | 85.10 | 95.29 | 98.15 |
Inhibitory rates of sanguinarine and cisplatin on coc1/ddp cell lines.
| Inhibition rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (umol/l) | 24 h | 48 h | 72 h |
| 0 | 0.91 ± 0.13 | 1.39 ± 0.17 | 1.77 ± 0.26 |
| 1 | 5.30 ± 2.03∗ | 11 68 ± 0.92∗ | 17.48 ± 1.57∗ |
| 2 | 23.31 ± 2.39∗ | 29.93 ± 1.54∗ | 34.00 ± 1.59∗ |
| 3 | 30.72 ± 1.41∗ | 41.02 ± 1.70∗ | 56.65 ± 3.08∗ |
| 4 | 64.44 ± 4.40∗ | 62.35 ± 3.21∗ | 70.73 ± 1.71∗ |
| 5 | 83.55 ± 4.52∗ | 87.44 ± 2.15∗ | 95.37 ± 2.13∗ |