评估精准肿瘤学的单样本网络推断方法。

IF 3.5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY NPJ Systems Biology and Applications Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1038/s41540-024-00340-w
Joke Deschildre, Boris Vandemoortele, Jens Uwe Loers, Katleen De Preter, Vanessa Vermeirssen
{"title":"评估精准肿瘤学的单样本网络推断方法。","authors":"Joke Deschildre, Boris Vandemoortele, Jens Uwe Loers, Katleen De Preter, Vanessa Vermeirssen","doi":"10.1038/s41540-024-00340-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A major challenge in precision oncology is to detect targetable cancer vulnerabilities in individual patients. Modeling high-throughput omics data in biological networks allows identifying key molecules and processes of tumorigenesis. Traditionally, network inference methods rely on many samples to contain sufficient information for learning, resulting in aggregate networks. However, to implement patient-tailored approaches in precision oncology, we need to interpret omics data at the level of individual patients. Several single-sample network inference methods have been developed that infer biological networks for an individual sample from bulk RNA-seq data. However, only a limited comparison of these methods has been made and many methods rely on 'normal tissue' samples as reference, which are not always available. Here, we conducted an evaluation of the single-sample network inference methods SSN, LIONESS, SWEET, iENA, CSN and SSPGI using transcriptomic profiles of lung and brain cancer cell lines from the CCLE database. The methods constructed functional gene networks with distinct network characteristics. Hub gene analyses revealed different degrees of subtype-specificity across methods. Single-sample networks were able to distinguish between tumor subtypes, as exemplified by node strength clustering, enrichment of known subtype-specific driver genes among hubs and differential node strength. We also showed that single-sample networks correlated better to other omics data from the same cell line as compared to aggregate networks. We conclude that single-sample network inference methods can reflect sample-specific biology when 'normal tissue' samples are absent and we point out peculiarities of each method.</p>","PeriodicalId":19345,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Systems Biology and Applications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10869342/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of single-sample network inference methods for precision oncology.\",\"authors\":\"Joke Deschildre, Boris Vandemoortele, Jens Uwe Loers, Katleen De Preter, Vanessa Vermeirssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41540-024-00340-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A major challenge in precision oncology is to detect targetable cancer vulnerabilities in individual patients. Modeling high-throughput omics data in biological networks allows identifying key molecules and processes of tumorigenesis. Traditionally, network inference methods rely on many samples to contain sufficient information for learning, resulting in aggregate networks. However, to implement patient-tailored approaches in precision oncology, we need to interpret omics data at the level of individual patients. Several single-sample network inference methods have been developed that infer biological networks for an individual sample from bulk RNA-seq data. However, only a limited comparison of these methods has been made and many methods rely on 'normal tissue' samples as reference, which are not always available. Here, we conducted an evaluation of the single-sample network inference methods SSN, LIONESS, SWEET, iENA, CSN and SSPGI using transcriptomic profiles of lung and brain cancer cell lines from the CCLE database. The methods constructed functional gene networks with distinct network characteristics. Hub gene analyses revealed different degrees of subtype-specificity across methods. Single-sample networks were able to distinguish between tumor subtypes, as exemplified by node strength clustering, enrichment of known subtype-specific driver genes among hubs and differential node strength. We also showed that single-sample networks correlated better to other omics data from the same cell line as compared to aggregate networks. We conclude that single-sample network inference methods can reflect sample-specific biology when 'normal tissue' samples are absent and we point out peculiarities of each method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Systems Biology and Applications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10869342/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Systems Biology and Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-024-00340-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Systems Biology and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41540-024-00340-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精准肿瘤学的一个主要挑战是检测个体患者的可靶向癌症弱点。通过在生物网络中建立高通量全息数据模型,可以确定肿瘤发生的关键分子和过程。传统的网络推断方法依赖于许多样本来包含足够的学习信息,从而产生集合网络。然而,要在精准肿瘤学中实施适合患者的方法,我们需要在患者个体层面解读omics数据。目前已开发出几种单样本网络推断方法,可从大量 RNA-seq 数据中推断出单个样本的生物网络。然而,对这些方法的比较还很有限,而且许多方法都依赖于 "正常组织 "样本作为参考,而这些样本并不总是可用的。在此,我们利用 CCLE 数据库中肺癌和脑癌细胞系的转录组图谱,对单样本网络推断方法 SSN、LIONESS、SWEET、iENA、CSN 和 SSPGI 进行了评估。这些方法构建了具有不同网络特征的功能基因网络。枢纽基因分析显示,不同方法具有不同程度的亚型特异性。单样本网络能够区分肿瘤亚型,节点强度聚类、已知亚型特异性驱动基因在中枢中的富集和节点强度差异就是例证。我们还发现,与聚合网络相比,单样本网络与同一细胞系的其他全息数据的相关性更好。我们的结论是,当缺乏 "正常组织 "样本时,单样本网络推断方法可以反映样本特异性生物学,我们还指出了每种方法的特殊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of single-sample network inference methods for precision oncology.

A major challenge in precision oncology is to detect targetable cancer vulnerabilities in individual patients. Modeling high-throughput omics data in biological networks allows identifying key molecules and processes of tumorigenesis. Traditionally, network inference methods rely on many samples to contain sufficient information for learning, resulting in aggregate networks. However, to implement patient-tailored approaches in precision oncology, we need to interpret omics data at the level of individual patients. Several single-sample network inference methods have been developed that infer biological networks for an individual sample from bulk RNA-seq data. However, only a limited comparison of these methods has been made and many methods rely on 'normal tissue' samples as reference, which are not always available. Here, we conducted an evaluation of the single-sample network inference methods SSN, LIONESS, SWEET, iENA, CSN and SSPGI using transcriptomic profiles of lung and brain cancer cell lines from the CCLE database. The methods constructed functional gene networks with distinct network characteristics. Hub gene analyses revealed different degrees of subtype-specificity across methods. Single-sample networks were able to distinguish between tumor subtypes, as exemplified by node strength clustering, enrichment of known subtype-specific driver genes among hubs and differential node strength. We also showed that single-sample networks correlated better to other omics data from the same cell line as compared to aggregate networks. We conclude that single-sample network inference methods can reflect sample-specific biology when 'normal tissue' samples are absent and we point out peculiarities of each method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NPJ Systems Biology and Applications
NPJ Systems Biology and Applications Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Systems Biology and Applications is an online Open Access journal dedicated to publishing the premier research that takes a systems-oriented approach. The journal aims to provide a forum for the presentation of articles that help define this nascent field, as well as those that apply the advances to wider fields. We encourage studies that integrate, or aid the integration of, data, analyses and insight from molecules to organisms and broader systems. Important areas of interest include not only fundamental biological systems and drug discovery, but also applications to health, medical practice and implementation, big data, biotechnology, food science, human behaviour, broader biological systems and industrial applications of systems biology. We encourage all approaches, including network biology, application of control theory to biological systems, computational modelling and analysis, comprehensive and/or high-content measurements, theoretical, analytical and computational studies of system-level properties of biological systems and computational/software/data platforms enabling such studies.
期刊最新文献
Understanding flux switching in metabolic networks through an analysis of synthetic lethals Optimal performance objectives in the highly conserved bone morphogenetic protein signaling pathway Tipping-point transition from transient to persistent inflammation in pancreatic islets EpiScan: accurate high-throughput mapping of antibody-specific epitopes using sequence information Codon usage and expression-based features significantly improve prediction of CRISPR efficiency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1