4.7 Article

PROSE: phenotype-specific network signatures from individual proteomic samples

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbad075

关键词

proteomics; network; enrichment scoring; candidate prioritization; integrated analysis; machine learning; support vector machine (SVM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proteomic studies aim to characterize the protein composition of complex biological samples. To address the challenge of low proteome coverage and interpretability, researchers developed PROSE, a fast and scalable pipeline that scores proteins based on gene co-expression network matrices. PROSE shows high accuracy in missing protein prediction and can capture key phenotypic features in proteomics datasets.
Proteomic studies characterize the protein composition of complex biological samples. Despite recent advancements in mass spectrometry instrumentation and computational tools, low proteome coverage and interpretability remains a challenge. To address this, we developed Proteome Support Vector Enrichment (PROSE), a fast, scalable and lightweight pipeline for scoring proteins based on orthogonal gene co-expression network matrices. PROSE utilizes simple protein lists as input, generating a standard enrichment score for all proteins, including undetected ones. In our benchmark with 7 other candidate prioritization techniques, PROSE shows high accuracy in missing protein prediction, with scores correlating strongly to corresponding gene expression data. As a further proof-of-concept, we applied PROSE to a reanalysis of the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia proteomics dataset, where it captures key phenotypic features, including gene dependency. We lastly demonstrated its applicability on a breast cancer clinical dataset, showing clustering by annotated molecular subtype and identification of putative drivers of triple-negative breast cancer. PROSE is available as a user-friendly Python module from https://github.com/bwbio/PROSE.

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