4.7 Article

Integration of Multi-Omics Data for Gene Regulatory Network Inference and Application to Breast Cancer

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TCBB.2018.2866836

Keywords

Biweight midcorrelation; differential correlation; nonconvex penalty; gene regulatory network; stability selection

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61732012, 61520106006, 31571364, 61532008, U1611265, 61672382, 61772370, 61702371, 61772357, 61672203]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M611619, 2016M601646]
  3. BAGUI Scholar Program of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Underlying a cancer phenotype is a specific gene regulatory network that represents the complex regulatory relationships between genes. It remains, however, a challenge to find cancer-related gene regulatory network because of insufficient sample sizes and complex regulatory mechanisms in which gene is influenced by not only other genes but also other biological factors. With the development of high-throughput technologies and the unprecedented wealth of multi-omics data it gives us a new opportunity to design machine learning method to investigate underlying gene regulatory network. In this paper, we propose an approach, which use Biweight Midcorrelation to measure the correlation between factors and make use of Nonconvex Penalty based sparse regression for Gene Regulatory Network inference (BMNPGRN). BMNCGRN incorporates multi-omics data (including DNA methylation and copy number variation) and their interactions in gene regulatory network model. The experimental results on synthetic datasets show that BMNPGRN outperforms popular and state-of-the-art methods (inducing DCGRN, ARACNE, and CLR) under false positive control. Furthermore, we applied BMNPGRN on breast cancer (BRCA) data from The Cancer Genome Atlas database and provided gene regulatory network.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available