4.6 Article

Effects of Multi-Omics Characteristics on Identification of Driver Genes Using Machine Learning Algorithms

期刊

GENES
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13050716

关键词

pan-cancer; multi-omics; driver gene; machine learning; Kullback-Leibler divergence

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61902216, 61972226, 61902215, 62172253]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilizes machine learning algorithms and multi-omics characteristics to detect cancer driver genes in pan-cancer data. It is found that mutational features are crucial, but other types of features also play a role in the top 45 feature combinations which are the most effective.
Cancer is a complex disease caused by genomic and epigenetic alterations; hence, identifying meaningful cancer drivers is an important and challenging task. Most studies have detected cancer drivers with mutated traits, while few studies consider multiple omics characteristics as important factors. In this study, we present a framework to analyze the effects of multi-omics characteristics on the identification of driver genes. We utilize four machine learning algorithms within this framework to detect cancer driver genes in pan-cancer data, including 75 characteristics among 19,636 genes. The 75 features are divided into four types and analyzed using Kullback-Leibler divergence based on CGC genes and non-CGC genes. We detect cancer driver genes in two different ways. One is to detect driver genes from a single feature type, while the other is from the top N features. The first analysis denotes that the mutational features are the best characteristics. The second analysis reveals that the top 45 features are the most effective feature combinations and superior to the mutational features. The top 45 features not only contain mutational features but also three other types of features. Therefore, our study extends the detection of cancer driver genes and provides a more comprehensive understanding of cancer mechanisms.

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

4.6
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