4.7 Article

Reconstruction of Gene Regulatory Networks Using Multiple Datasets

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3057241

关键词

Vegetation; Prediction algorithms; Steady-state; Forestry; Regression tree analysis; Perturbation methods; Inference algorithms; Gene regulatory network; random forest; boosting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, an algorithm called GENEREF was developed to accumulate information from multiple datasets in an iterative manner, improving the accuracy of prediction results. The algorithm was extensively tested on multiple datasets and outperformed other algorithms on selected networks, showing competitiveness with existing multi-dataset algorithms.
Motivation: Laboratory gene regulatory data for a species are sporadic. Despite the abundance of gene regulatory network algorithms that employ single data sets, few algorithms can combine the vast but disperse sources of data and extract the potential information. With a motivation to compensate for this shortage, we developed an algorithm called GENEREF that can accumulate information from multiple types of data sets in an iterative manner, with each iteration boosting the performance of the prediction results. Results: The algorithm is examined extensively on data extracted from the quintuple DREAM4 networks and DREAM5's Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae networks and sub-networks. Many single-dataset and multi-dataset algorithms were compared to test the performance of the algorithm. Results show that GENEREF surpasses non-ensemble state-of-the-art multi-perturbation algorithms on the selected networks and is competitive to present multiple-dataset algorithms. Specifically, it outperforms dynGENIE3 and is on par with iRafNet. Also, we argued that a scoring method solely based on the AUPR criterion would be more trustworthy than the traditional score. Availability: The Python implementation along with the data sets and results can be downloaded from github.com/msaremi/GENEREF.

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