4.0 Article

AMBIENT: Active Modules for Bipartite Networks - using high-throughput transcriptomic data to dissect metabolic response

期刊

BMC SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-7-26

关键词

Metabolic networks; Simulated annealing; High-throughput data; Stress response; Network analysis

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/G020434/1]
  2. University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C519670/1, BB/G020434/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BB/G020434/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: With the continued proliferation of high-throughput biological experiments, there is a pressing need for tools to integrate the data produced in ways that produce biologically meaningful conclusions. Many microarray studies have analysed transcriptomic data from a pathway perspective, for instance by testing for KEGG pathway enrichment in sets of upregulated genes. However, the increasing availability of species-specific metabolic models provides the opportunity to analyse these data in a more objective, system-wide manner. Results: Here we introduce ambient (Active Modules for Bipartite Networks), a simulated annealing approach to the discovery of metabolic subnetworks (modules) that are significantly affected by a given genetic or environmental change. The metabolic modules returned by ambient are connected parts of the bipartite network that change coherently between conditions, providing a more detailed view of metabolic changes than standard approaches based on pathway enrichment. Conclusions: ambient is an effective and flexible tool for the analysis of high-throughput data in a metabolic context. The same approach can be applied to any system in which reactions (or metabolites) can be assigned a score based on some biological observation, without the limitation of predefined pathways. A Python implementation of ambient is available at http://www.theosysbio.bio.ic.ac.uk/ambient.

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

4.0
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