4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Network analysis of genes regulated in renal diseases: implications for a molecular-based classification

Journal

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-S9-S3

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1RR024986, UL1 RR024986] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [U54 DA021519] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK081943, R01 DK079912] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Chronic renal diseases are currently classified based on morphological similarities such as whether they produce predominantly inflammatory or non-inflammatory responses. However, such classifications do not reliably predict the course of the disease and its response to therapy. In contrast, recent studies in diseases such as breast cancer suggest that a classification which includes molecular information could lead to more accurate diagnoses and prediction of treatment response. This article describes how we extracted gene expression profiles from biopsies of patients with chronic renal diseases, and used network visualizations and associated quantitative measures to rapidly analyze similarities and differences between the diseases. Results: The analysis revealed three main regularities: (1) Many genes associated with a single disease, and fewer genes associated with many diseases. (2) Unexpected combinations of renal diseases that share relatively large numbers of genes. (3) Uniform concordance in the regulation of all genes in the network. Conclusion: The overall results suggest the need to define a molecular-based classification of renal diseases, in addition to hypotheses for the unexpected patterns of shared genes and the uniformity in gene concordance. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the utility of network analyses to rapidly understand complex relationships between diseases and regulated genes.

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