4.7 Article

Disease gene identification based on generic and disease-specific genome networks

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1923-1930

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty882

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2018R1D1A1B07043524, 2017-0-00887]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1D1A1B07043524] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Summary: Immune diseases have a strong genetic component with Mendelian patterns of inheritance. While the tight association has been a major understanding in the underlying pathophysiology for the category of immune diseases, the common features of these diseases remain unclear. Based on the potential commonality among immune genes, we design Gene Ranker for key gene identification. Gene Ranker is a network-based gene scoring algorithm that initially constructs a backbone network based on protein interactions. Patient gene expression networks are added into the network. An add-on process screens the networks of weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) on the samples of immune patients. Gene Ranker is disease-specific; however, any WGCNA network that passes the screening procedure can be added on. With the constructed network, it employs the semi-supervised learning for gene scoring. Results: The proposed method was applied to immune diseases. Based on the resulting scores, Gene Ranker identified potential key genes in immune diseases. In scoring validation, an average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 was achieved, which is a significant increase from the reference average of 0.76. Highly ranked genes were verified through retrieval and review of 27 million PubMed literatures. As a typical case, 20 potential key genes in rheumatoid arthritis were identified: 10 were de facto genes and the remaining were novel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据