ArticlePloS one2018
A novel method of using Deep Belief Networks and genetic perturbation data to search for yeast signaling pathways.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing the Impact of Genomic Alterations on Cancer Cell Signaling with an Interpretable Deep Learning Model.Cancers · 2023Article
- Omics Data and Data Representations for Deep Learning-Based Predictive Modeling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perturbing a signaling system with a serial of single gene deletions and then observing corresponding expression changes in model organisms, such as yeast, is an important and widely used experimental technique for studying signaling pathways. People have developed different computational methods to analyze the perturbation data from gene deletion experiments for exploring the signaling pathways. The most popular methods/techniques include K-means clustering and hierarchical clustering techniques, or combining the expression data with knowledge, such as protein-protein interactions (PPIs) or gene ontology (GO), to search for new pathways. However, these methods neither consider nor fully utilize the intrinsic relation between the perturbation of a pathway and expression changes of genes regulated by the pathway, which served as the main motivation for developing a new computational method in this study. In our new model, we first find gene transcriptomic modules such that genes in each module are highly likely to be regulated by a common signal. We then use the expression status of those modules as readouts of pathway perturbations to search for up-stream pathways. Systematic evaluation, such as through gene ontology enrichment analysis, has provided evidence that genes in each transcriptomic module are highly likely to be regulated by a common signal. The PPI density analysis and literature search revealed that our new perturbation modules are functionally coherent. For example, the literature search revealed that 9 genes in one of our perturbation module are related to cell cycle and all 10 genes in another perturbation module are related by DNA damage, with much evidence from the literature coming from in vitro or/and in vivo verifications. Hence, utilizing the intrinsic relation between the perturbation of a pathway and the expression changes of genes regulated by the pathway is a useful method of searching for signaling pathways using genetic perturbation data. This model would also be suitable for analyzing drug experiment data, such as the CMap data, for finding drugs that perturb the same pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.