A GO-Based Method for Assessing the Biological Plausibility of Regulatory Hypotheses

  • Jonas Gamalielsson
  • Patric Nilsson
  • Björn Olsson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3992)


Many algorithms have been proposed for deriving regulatory networks from microarray gene expression data. The performance of such algorithms is often measured by how well the resulting network can recreate the gene expression data that it was derived from. However, this kind of performance does not necessarily mean that the regulatory hypotheses in the network are biologically plausible. We therefore propose a method for assessing the biological plausibility of regulatory hypotheses using prior knowledge in the form of regulatory pathway databases and Gene Ontology-based annotation of gene products. A set of templates is derived by generalising from known interactions to typical properties of interacting gene product pairs. By searching for matches in this set of templates, the plausibility of regulatory hypotheses can be assessed. We evaluate to what degree the collection of templates can separate true from false positive interactions, and we illustrate the practical use of the method by applying it to an example network reconstruction problem.


Semantic Similarity Biological Plausibility Dynamic Bayesian Network Correct Hypothesis Basic Template 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    D’haeseleer, P., Liang, S., Somogyi, R.: Genetic network inference: from co-expression clustering to reverse engineering. Bioinformatics 16, 707–726 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liang, S., Fuhrman, S., Somogyi, R.: REVEAL - a general reverse engineering algorithm for inference of genetic network architectures. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 3, 18–29 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akutsu, T., Miyano, S., Kuhara, S.: Identification of genetic networks from a small number of gene expression patterns under the Boolean network model. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 4, 17–28 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’haeseleer, P., Wen, X., Fuhrman, S., Somogyi, R.: Linear modeling of mRNA expression levels during CNS development and injury. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 4, 41–52 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weaver, D.C., Workman, C.T., Stormo, G.D.: Modeling regulatory networks with weight matrices. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 4, 112–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman, N., Linial, M., Nachman, I., Pe’er, D.: Using Bayesian networks to analyze expression data. In: RECOMB 2000: Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, pp. 127–135 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, S.Y., Imoto, S., Miyano, S.: Inferring gene networks from time series microarray data using dynamic Bayesian networks. Briefings in Bioinformatics 4, 228–235 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husmeier, D.: Sensitivity and specificity of inferring genetic regulatory interactions from microarray experiments with dynamic Bayesian networks. Bioinformatics 19, 2271–2282 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., Harris, M.A., Hill, D.P., Issel-Tarver, L., Kasarskis, A., Lewis, S., Matese, J.C., Richardson, J.E., Ringwald, M., Rubin, G.M., Sherlock, G.: Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics 25, 25–29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 296–304 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang, J.J., Conrath, D.W.: Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Research on Computational Linguistics, ROCLING X, pp. 19–33 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Resnik, P.: Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 95–130 (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tuzhilin, A., Adomavicius, G.: Handling very large numbers of association rules in the analysis of microarray data. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 396–404 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lord, P.W., Stevens, R.D., Brass, A., Goble, C.A.: Investigating semantic similarity measures across the Gene Ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics 19, 1275–1283 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sigursteinsdottir, G.: Learning gene interactions from gene expression data using dynamic Bayesian networks. Master’s thesis, HS-IKI-MD-04-202, Univ. of Skövde (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Gamalielsson
    • 1
  • Patric Nilsson
    • 1
  • Björn Olsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Systems Biology GroupUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations