4.6 Article

INBIA: a boosting methodology for proteomic network inference

Journal

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-018-2183-5

Keywords

Protein interaction network; Network inference; Protein expression; Network algorithm

Funding

  1. Fondo Unico Ricerca (FUR)
  2. INDAM - GNCS Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The analysis of tissue-specific protein interaction networks and their functional enrichment in pathological and normal tissues provides insights on the etiology of diseases. The Pan-cancer proteomic project, in The Cancer Genome Atlas, collects protein expressions in human cancers and it is a reference resource for the functional study of cancers. However, established protocols to infer interaction networks from protein expressions are still missing. Results: We have developed a methodology called Inference Network Based on iReflndex Analysis (INBIA) to accurately correlate proteomic inferred relations to protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. INBIA makes use of 14 network inference methods on protein expressions related to 16 cancer types. It uses as reference model the iReflndex human PPI network. Predictions are validated through non-interacting and tissue specific PPI networks resources. The first, Negatome, takes into account likely non-interacting proteins by combining both structure properties and literature mining. The latter, TissueNet and GIANT, report experimentally verified PPIs in more than 50 human tissues. The reliability of the proposed methodology is assessed by comparing INBIA with PERA, a tool which infers protein interaction networks from Pathway Commons, by both functional and topological analysis. Conclusion: Results show that INBIA is a valuable approach to predict proteomic interactions in pathological conditions starting from the current knowledge of human protein interactions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available