|
|
Cancer Inform. 2008; 6: 463–474. Published online 2008 November 5. | PMCID: PMC2623292 |
Modeling and Analyzing Gene Co-Expression in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Actor-Semiotic Networks and Centrality Signatures David C.Y. Fung School of Information Technologies, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently the fifth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Because of its high prevalence in developing nations, there have been numerous efforts made in the molecular characterization of primary HCC. However, a better understanding into the pathology of HCC required software-assisted network modeling and analysis. In this paper, the author presented his first attempt in exploring the biological implication of gene co-expression in HCC using actor-semiotic network modeling and analysis. The network was first constructed by integrating inter-actor relationships, e.g. gene co-expression, microRNA-to-gene, and protein interactions, with semiotic relationships, e.g. gene-to-Gene Ontology Process. Topological features that are highly discriminative of the HCC phenotype were identified by visual inspection. Finally, the author devised a graph signature-based analysis method to supplement the network exploration. Keywords: actor-semiotic network, node centrality, graph signature, gene co-expression, hepatocellular carcinoma Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide with one million new cases diagnosed annually. Its prevalence is much higher in developing nations than in industrialized nations. At present, 80% of the HCC cases came from the East Asia and the sub-Saharan Africa with China accounting for nearly 55% of them [ 1]. For this reason, there have been numerous efforts made in the molecular characterization of primary HCC. As a result, there is a rich repository of genomic and proteomic data available for public access [ 2]. To uncover the biology hidden within such a large volume of data will require software-assisted network modeling and analysis (reviewed in [ 3]). In recent years, attempts to characterize disease phenotypes by integrative network modeling and analysis have been made. For example, Tuck et al. [ 4] retrieved the human gene regulatory network from the TRANSFAC ® database and integrated it with the transcription factor-to-target genes co-expression network derived from multiple microarrays. They then demonstrated that node degree measures are a feasible discriminator of oncology types. Chuang et al. 5 characterized proteomic sub-networks as the biomarkers for discriminating between metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer. They demonstrated that the protein sub-networks identified are highly discriminative of metastasis and some of the genes underscored by statistical inference methods were found to be member nodes of those sub-networks. These studies demonstrated the effectiveness of network modeling and analysis. This paper presents the author’s first attempt in exploring the biological implication of gene co-expression in HCC using actor-semiotic network modeling. The rationale was that a complex network requires context or metadata to be comprehensible. Without which, no human user would be able to unpack the information content within, let alone making biological deductions. The proposed actor-semiotic network is similar to the actor-network 6 frequently used for modeling healthcare systems. Actor-network theory models the human community as a network of heterogeneous actor-semiotic interactions. The actors are human participants, human organizations, and material objects. The semiotics is the human ideas, concept, and policies. In molecular biology, the actors are the bio-molecules and the sub-cellular components. The semiotics is the human understanding of biology. Its abstraction is the ontologies on biological processes, molecular function, and cellular phenotypes. Because the topology of an actor-semiotic network is determined by the combination of inter-actor and semiotic relationships, there should be visually identifiable topological features that are highly discriminative of the HCC phenotype. To achieve this, the author employed visual inspection and, in addition, a graph signature-based analysis method to supplement network exploration. This method first summarized the local topology of every node in the network as a signature vector and then projected the vectors onto a two-dimensional scatterplot for further exploration. 2. Topological Analysis of the Actor-Semiotic Network 2.1. Visual analysis Using NetMap Decision Director™, an actor-semiotic network G (| V| = 9313; | E| = 49,393) was being constructed. G was a union of all the actor and semiotic nodes and edges described in section 6.2. The bio-molecules and the sub-cellular components within G were represented by the actor nodes whereas the biological context of G was represented by the semiotic nodes (see Appendix A.1). The pairwise interactions between bio-molecules or between bio-molecules and sub-cellular components were represented by the inter-actor edges. The ontological relationships between actor and semiotic nodes were represented by the semiotic edges. A smaller network G′ (| V| = 1668; | E| = 2473) was derived from G as a result of node mapping (see Appendix A.2 and ). To test whether G′ contained a set of nested networks, it was decomposed to Gd using NetMap™. The nested networks observed in Gd are discrete clusters. Let Ck be one of the clusters, then Gd = { Ck} where 0 < k ≤ 32 (). Each cluster is a network that is not connected to any other clusters nor does it share any of its member nodes with other clusters, such that Ci ∩ Cj = 0 for Ci, Cj ![[subset, dbl equals]](/corehtml/pmc/pmcents/x2286.gif) { Ck} where i ≠ j. Although their size | V| ranged from 2 to 1536, only one cluster had a | V| of 1536. The rest had a | V| that ranged from 2 to 7. Among the inter-actor edges in the small clusters (1 < | V| < 8), only 10 were of the Coexpression_ HCC subtype and 24 were of the Coexpression_liver subtype. It showed that most co-expressed genes, whether in the normal hepatocyte or in HCC, are highly inter-connected. Eight of the small clusters contained only semiotic edges. For the small clusters that contained at least one inter-actor edge, the semiotic nodes indicated that the protein-coding genes within each cluster shared the same biological process or molecular function (). From the largest cluster Ge (| V| = 1536; | E| = 2367) in Gd, the largest connected component Ge′ (| V| = 1371; | E| = 1120) was extracted (). Ge′ was comprised of inter-connected emergent groups and liaison nodes (). An emergent group is a sub-network in which its member nodes are more inter-connected within than without. A liaison node is a node shared by multiple emergent groups. The emergent groups were localized in the top half and the liaison nodes in the lower half of Ge′. Of the 41 emergent groups, six of them had a | V| larger than 25. The semiotic edges within each emergent group indicated that it belongs to a specific biological process showing that the topology of the integrated co-expression and protein interaction network in HCC is partially modular. In a sense, each emergent group is similar to the Complex Biological Module proposed by Zotenko et al. 30. Some emergent groups, e.g. groups 4 and 5, are directly linked to one another suggesting that the coupling between their corresponding biological processes could be hard-wired. Some, e.g. groups 2 and 3, are connected via liaison nodes, MAPK1 and MIRN217, suggesting that the coupling between their corresponding biological processes could be switch-dependent. 2.2. Network exploration using graph signatures The eccentricity and radiality centralities were found to give identical rankings. The same was also observed with the HITS-Authority and HITS-Hub centralities. Therefore the radiality and the HITS-Hub centralities were excluded from the signature vector of each node. After the signature vectors were computed and scaled, the scatterplot shows that there are two clusters of nodes, each representing a different range of signature vectors (). Nodes within the emergent groups were found in the upper cluster and liaison nodes were found in the lower cluster. The six nodes at the left-extremity (x-range = [−1661.93, −1617.66]; y-range = [−74.14, 61.57]; ) of the lower cluster have signatures that contained the top 5% ranking in closeness, current-flow betweenness, current-flow closeness, and shortest-path betweenness centralities. Three of these nodes GGA3, IPO7 and RAN are members of emergent group 2 (). They are involved in intracellular trafficking. Another two, CTGF and CYR61 are liaison nodes involved in angiogenesis. The last one, MAPK1 is also a liaison node which is an amplifier shared by multiple signal transduction pathways. The four nodes at the right-extremity (x-range = [1620.29, 1719.54]; y-range = [−125.71, −184.45]; ) of the upper cluster have signatures that contain the bottom 10% ranking in all seven centrality types. Two of them, NDUFB5 and PSMB9, are actor nodes. Another two, GO:0051538 (3 iron, 4 sulfur cluster binding) and GO:0051881 (regulation of mitochondrial membrane potential), are semiotic nodes. NDUFB5 is a subunit of the ubiquinone complex in the mitochondrial electron transport chain whereas PSMB9 is a proteosome subunit. Both proteins are peripheral nodes in the emergent group 6 (). The three nodes at the bottom corner of the lower cluster (x-range = [119.32, 173.93]; y-range = [−1570.32, −1597.41]; ) have signatures that contain the bottom 10% ranking in closeness, current-flow closeness, eccentricity, and HITS-authority centralities, and the top 10% ranking in degree, current-flow betweenness, and shortest-path betweenness centralities. They are COX17, NDUFS1, and DLD. Each of these nodes was a junction to two small subsets of nodes with each subset containing a maximum of three nodes. Yet at least one node within each subset was connected to another two nodes without. COX17 and NDUFS1 are subunits of the mitochondrial electron transport chain with the latter being another subunit of the ubiquinone complex. DLD is a subunit of the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. The semiotic node at the top corner of the upper cluster (x = [225.65]; y = [1223.89]; ) is GO:0050672 (negative regulation of lymphocyte proliferation). It had a signature that contain the bottom 10% ranking in degree, current-flow betweenness, and shortest-path betweenness centralities, the top 10% ranking in closeness and eccentricity centrality, and the top 5% ranking in HITS-authority centrality. In summary, the ranking of all centralities decreases as one moves to the right end of the x-axis in the scatterplot. On the other hand, the node ranking on degree, current-flow betweenness, and shortest-path betweenness centralities increase as one moves to the lower end of the y-axis but at the same time, the rankings on closeness, currentflow closeness, eccentricity, and HITS-authority centralities decrease. The rank score of those nodes mentioned in this paper are tabulated in Table 1. | Table 1Node centrality ranking of actor and semiotic nodes in Ge′. |
3. Inference of HCC Biology Based on the visual exploration of network Ge′ and the inspection of the scatterplot, the author deduced several hypotheses on the molecular pathology of HCC as described in the following sections. Since cell cycle events have been well studied in recent years, emergent group 3 was used to demonstrate that the actor-semiotic network is a model consistent with the current knowledge on cell proliferation. MicroRNAs have recently been discovered as new players in regulating oncogenic signal transduction. In section 3.2, the author hypothesized the influence of MIRN18A on angiogenesis in HCC and how this could contribute to tumor invasiveness. Also gaining attention lately is the role of intracellular trafficking in establishing the malignant phenotype. In section 3.3, the author hypothesized the possible effect of nuclear export disruption on growth factor-induced gene regulation. 3.1. De-synchronized cell cycle phases The semiotic nodes in emergent group 3 indicated that it contains exclusively cell cycle genes (). Their co-expression was found only in HCC and could be a result of replication stress. Within this emergent group, UBE2C has the highest node degree centrality. Of interest, UBE2C up-regulation has frequently been observed in a variety of malignancies including HCC [ 2, 7]. UBE2C was found to link with three semiotic nodes, GO:0007051 (spindle organization), GO:0008054 (cyclin catabolism), and GO:0031536 (positive regulation of mitotic exit), as compared to only one or two seen among its co-expressed neighbours. Hence UBE2C is functionally more diverse but still operates exclusively within the cell cycle. This agrees with the consensus that UBE2C, an E2-ubiquitin conjugating enzyme, is a subunit of the anaphase promoting complex (APC/C) which mediates substrate ordering 8. Substrate ordering refers to the proper sequence of protein ubiquitination that ensures the orderly degradation of different proteins during cell cycle progression. It has been known that APC/C inactivation is mediated by UBE2C auto-ubiquitination, a result of UBE2C up-regulation 9. If this up-regulation is persistent in HCC, APC/C inactivation could be prolonged beyond the S phase. One probable effect would be the reduction in cyclin catabolism which could lead to a shortened G1 phase and a prolonged S phase due to the disruption in DNA replication 10. With the loss of substrate ordering, the author hypothesized that the cell cycle phasing would be de-synchronized. Molecular events that are S phase specific could co-exist with those in the G2 and M phases. Eventually, mitotic exit could be delayed or even failed. 3.2. Abnormal angiogenesis CYR61 ( CCN1) and CTGF ( CCN2) were found to co-express with TGFB1 in HCC only. Both belong to the CCN family of immediate early genes activated by TGFβ1 11 and by hypoxia 12. Previous work suggested that CYR61 induces endothelial cell proliferation, cell adhesion, and angiogenesis through the activation of integrin ( ITGAV- ITGB3 complex) expression 13. CTGF induces the secretion of collagen and fibronectin which form the scaffolding of the extracellular matrix, a step crucial to the formation of a neo-vasculature 14. That explained why it is directly linked to COL6A1 and COL6A3 in emergent group 7. As shown in the lower right inset of , CTGF is a predicted target of MIRN18A. This microRNA gene, which has been found to express in some Japanese HCC patients, is both liver- and tumor-specific 15. The author hypothesized that the expression of MIRN18A in HCC could lead to matrix instability due to the reduced translation of CTGF transcripts. The dynamics of angiogenesis could therefore be altered if the molecular abundance of CYR61 is higher than that of CTGF. One consequence could be excessive endothelial cell migration and proliferation but inadequate cell anchorage due to an unstable extracellular matrix and hence poor tubular formation. Tumor vasculature is known to be structurally chaotic with excessive leakage 16 and MIRN18A expression could be a contributing factor. This may enhance HCC metastasis in two ways. The first could be enhanced tissue invasion by MMPs induced by the hepatitis B viral oncoprotein HBX in malignant cells 17. The second could be the intravasation of malignant cells into the neo-vasculature but also rapid extravasation to the surrounding tissue because of vascular leakage. 3.3. Disrupted nuclear transport IPO7 and RAN were found to co-express not only with each other but also with nine other protein-coding genes (emergent group 2; ). The semiotic nodes indicated that they are all involved in intracellular trafficking. Their co-expression occurred only in normal hepatocytes suggesting that intracellular trafficking could be aberrant in HCC. One possible cause could be the disruption of nucleocytoplasmic trafficking by HBX. Specifically, HBX disrupts nuclear export by sequestrating the export receptor XPO. Furthermore, the nuclear import and export processes require the GTPase protein RAN. It controls the interaction of XPO and of the importin receptor IPO7 with their target proteins 18. If the majority of the XPO in HCC is being inactivated by HBX, it is possible that there will be a surplus of RAN available for mediating nuclear import by IPO7. Recent findings revealed that many growth factors, e.g. CTGF, CYR61, EGF, FGF, IFNG, and their cell surface receptors can be endocytosed, then imported into the nucleus by importin receptors, and eventually exported by exportin receptors (reviewed in 19). Within the nucleus, they interact with various transcription factors, e.g. E2F1 and STAT3, or co-regulators 20. Apart from regulating the transcription of specific target genes, they could also be involved in DNA replication 21 and repair 22, and RNA metabolism 23. Therefore the author hypothesized that the HBX-induced imbalance between nuclear import and export volumes could prolong growth factor activities inside the nucleus. Already, there have been studies suggesting that, at least for FGFs and EGFs, prolonged nuclear localization is correlated with cancer progression, resistance to radiotherapy and consequently poor prognosis 24. 4.1. Strength and limitations of network analysis Network analytics is very suited to biomedical research where high informational granularity and connectivity between objects are required for knowledge inference. However, the scale of the network often presents a cognitive challenge to the analyst. This limitation is partly moderated with the use of NetMap™ which allows the analyst to downsize a large network (| V| > 5000; | E| > 5000) by excluding nodes and edges selectively and then extract any sub-networks for further analysis. The 2D-projection of graph signatures further moderates the challenge of scale by providing a visual summary on the surrounding topology of every node in the form of a scatterplot. Using the latter as a guide, the analyst can then prioritize the nodes that need to be inspected first. At present, the author is testing this approach with networks that contained human disease terms 25 and cellular quiescence phenotypes 26 as semiotic nodes to see if one can discover more insights into the molecular pathology of HCC. 4.2. Biological implication of node centrality There have been several views on how node centralities signify the biological essentiality of a protein. The first view took degree centrality as the primary indicator of biological essentiality because high degree protein nodes, also known as hubs, are essential for maintaining network connectivity 27. The second view argued that shortest-path betweenness centrality is a better indicator of essentiality 28. This view suggested that bottleneck proteins linked to multiple protein hubs are also biologically essential. The positive correlation between node degree and biological essentiality has been confirmed recently [ 29, 30] but the original rationale has been challenged 30. Zotenko et al.’s 30 proposition was that the hubs are essential because they form modules in which the member proteins are highly inter-connected and share a common biological function. They named the module as Essential Complex Biological Module (ECOBIM) because it is enriched in essential proteins. Furthermore, the authors demonstrated that current flow betweenness and shortest-path betweenness centralities are better indicators of connectivity, thus supporting the second view. So far, the above hypotheses were deduced from the yeast protein interaction network [ 27, 28, 30] and the human disease gene network 29 but how do they contribute to the current understanding of cancer biology? The first view seemed to agree with the recent suggestion that it could take three mutated genes or fewer to induce early stage malignancy 31 since some well studied cancer genes, e.g. APC, TP53, PTEN, and CDKN2A, have a degree centrality greater than 20 (see in 32). Further supporting evidence is that these genes are known to associate with familial cancers 33. However, Goh et al. 29 demonstrated that the vast majority of disease genes do not encode proteins high in degree centrality and therefore are not essential except for diseases that are fatal in utero. If applied to oncology, that will suggest that carcinogenesis does not necessarily involve genes (or proteins) of high degree centralities. In the network Ge′, the author observed that protein-coding genes that rank within the top 2% in degree centrality are not necessarily highly ranked in betweenness centralities. The best example comes from emergent group 1 in which RPL6, RPL9, RPL14, RPL15 and RPL31 rank within the top 2% in degree centrality but rank below 149th in current-flow centrality and rank below 100th in shortest-path betweenness centrality ( Table 1). These genes are essential because RNA biosynthesis is fundamental to viability. The deletion of any one gene will affect the connectivity within the emergent group 1 more than without. This observation is in agreement with Zotenko et al.’s view. On the other hand, genes that rank within the top 10% in degree centrality and also within the top 5% in closeness, current-flow closeness, current-flow betweenness, and shortest-path betweenness centralities, are involved in signal transduction or intracellular trafficking suggesting that they could be the key drivers of disease progression if not carcinogenesis. Some of these proteins, e.g. CXCR4, RAN and IPO, are not only nodes within individual emergent groups but are also connected to liaison nodes and nodes of other emergent groups. Furthermore, a few signal transduction proteins, e.g. CXCR4 and MAPK1, have degree centralities that rank within the top 2% and their current-flow betweenness and shortest-path betweenness centralities ranking within the top 1%. They are likely to be signaling hubs 32. Therefore, genes involved in HCC can have a high degree centrality but they can also serve as bottleneck proteins to multiple emergent groups. This deduction further refines Goh et al.’s proposition. Thus far, none of the microRNA nodes found in Ge′ are emergent group nodes but are liaison nodes. Their degree centralities rank between 252nd to 1314th with a median ranking of 569th. If projecting from Goh et al.’s and Zotenko et al.’s proposition, microRNAs are non-essential implying that their deletion may not be lethal but can contribute to abnormalities. Of the 15 microRNAs in Ge′, four of them rank within the top 3% in closeness centrality. They are MIRN148A, MIRN148B, MIRN217, and MIRN375. The first two also rank within the top 2% in eccentricity. In addition, MIRN217 rank within the top 2% in shortest-path betweenness centrality and MIRN375 rank within the top 3% in current-flow betweenness and shortest-path betweenness centralities ( Table 1). They share the common topological feature of being connected to liaison nodes on one side and emergent group nodes on the other side. Their ranking in the betweenness centralities seems to depend on the number of interaction partners and the node degree of each interaction partner. Based on the visualized topology and centrality rankings, it is reasonable to hypothesize that microRNAs which target signal transduction proteins or transcription factors of high degree, closeness, and betweenness centralities will exert the highest impact on the regulation of gene expression. This deduction seemed to agree with Cui et al.’s 34 proposition that the expression of the output layer genes in the signaling network is heavily regulated by microRNAs. Because the signal transduction network is inter-connected with the gene regulatory network 35, some proteins at the output layer could be bottlenecks that bridge the two networks and therefore are most likely to have high degree centralities as well as betweenness centralities. The use of actor-semiotic network modeling and analysis does provide insight into the pathology of HCC. Although the inclusion of semiotic nodes increases the size of a network, they are useful for identifying discrete clusters or emergent groups that serve a particular biological process or a set of inter-related molecular functions. The provisions of network decomposition and sub-network extraction functionalities by NetMap™ facilitated the ‘top down’ exploration of a large graph. The use of graph signatures further facilitated network exploration by providing a summary of node topologies in a form of a scatterplot. 6.1. Data sources Gene expression data The gene co-expression profiles of HCC and normal hepatocytes were obtained from Gamberoni et al. 36 which was derived from the original dataset published by Chen et al. 37. A set of co-expressed genes from each sample set (normal hepatocyte or HCC) was extracted based on their Pearson’s correlation coefficients ( PCC ≥ 0.86). This level of correlation, according to the random matrix theory, should be adequate for differentiating between the true co-expression modules and random noise 38. MicroRNA expression data The microRNA expression data of HCC and adjacent normal hepatocytes was published by Murakami et al. 15. The predicted microRNA target genes were curated from three publications [ 39– 41]. Gene Ontology The three categories of GO— Component, Process, and Function, were obtained from the Gene Ontology Consortium 42. Human proteome data The canonical human proteomic interaction data was obtained from the BioGrid version 2.0.36 43. This was integrated with the Hepatitis B-to-human proteomic interaction data obtained from the NCBI Gene RIF. 6.2. Data-to-network mapping A relational database was constructed for storing the above datasets. Data for the edges were stored in four tables with each storing data of a specific edge type. The mapping of data to nodes and edges was done with the use of NetMap Decision Director™. The actor nodes are GO Component, Gene, MIRNA, and Protein. The semiotic nodes are GO Process and GO Function. The semiotic edges are of the type Gene_To_GO (Process or Function). Inter-actor edge types are Gene_To_GO (Component), Gene_To_Gene, miRNA_To_Gene, and Gene_To_Protein. Gene_To_Gene has two subtypes: Coexpression_HCC and Coexpression_Liver. Gene_To_Protein also has two subtypes: Human_Protein_Interaction and HBV_Human_Interaction. 6.3. Network visualization and interactivity The visualization for the networks described in this paper was generated with the use of NetMap™. The software also allows the analyst to (1) decompose a large graph into a set of discrete clusters; (2) extract the largest cluster and identify its largest connected component; (3) decompose the largest connected component to inter-connecting emergent groups; (4) navigate from point-to-point within each network; and (5) search nodes by Gene Symbols or GO identifiers. 6.4. Emergent groups The identification of emergent groups was completed by a proprietary pattern recognition algorithm embedded in NetMap™. These groups are so named because they emerge out of a given set of pairwise relationships. Hence, in a biological or social network, emergent groups are network structures that emerge out of local interactions 44. The NetMap™ algorithm was employed to examine the topology and the edge types of the relevant network and emergent group nodes were identified based on three criteria: Given an emergent group Ce(Ve, Ee), - |Ve| > 2
- Ee = Ve × Ve such that |Ee| > 2.
- Each node v
![[set membership]](/corehtml/pmc/pmcents/x2208.gif) Ve has at least 50% of its edges connected to other nodes within Ce.
Under these criteria, Ce often appears as a subnetwork of high curvature which is the local density of triangular relations. Given that the curvature of a node, curv(v), is defined as: where curv( v) = [0, 1], t is the number of triangles, and n is the number of neighbours to node v 45, curv( v)→1 in Ce. 6.5. Centrality measures Node centralities are metrics for measuring the connectivity pattern of a node in relation to its surrounding neighbours. In this study, nine types of node centralities were calculated using CentiBiN 46. They are closeness, current-flow betweenness, current flow closeness, degree, eccentricity, HITS-authority, HITS-hub, radiality, and shortest-path betweenness centralities. The rationale behind each measure can be found in 47. 6.6. Signature vectors After computing each node centrality type, the nodes were ranked in the descending order of their centrality values. The node with the highest value for, say degree centrality, would be assigned a rank score of 1. Hence the lower is the rank score, the higher is the node ranking for a certain centrality type. This step generated a column vector R = [ ci] for each centrality type in which each entry c i is the rank score for node i. The iteration of the previous step generated a set of column vectors S = ( R0, R1, …, Rj) which formed the matrix M = [ cij] in which each entry cij is the rank score for node i of the centrality type j. The node i can be an actor or a semiotic node. The signature vector Vi for node i is defined as Vi = ( ci0, ci1, …, cij) which is the row i of M. The matrix M was further factorized to give a smaller matrix M′ = [ cik] for k < j if some of the column vectors in M were identical. The resulting signature vector V′ i for node i is therefore the row i of M′. Using Kruskal’s multi-dimensional scaling, the set of signature vectors { V′ i} was then projected to a 2D space and visualized as a scatterplot 48. 6.7. Software availability The NetMap Analytics™ software suite which includes NetMap Decision Director™ and NetMap™ is available from NetMap Analytics Proprietary Limited, Sydney, Australia ( http://www.netmapanalytics.com.au) under an academic license. The author acknowledged Georgina Lakeland from the NetMap Analytics Proprietary Limited for providing technical support. He was also grateful to Dr. Bing Yu from the Faculty of Medicine, the University of Sydney, for his helpful comments on this manuscript. A.1. Representation of network G The input for generating G is a set of networks {G1, …, G6} in which: - G1(V1, E1, ρ) is the co-expression network where V1 is the set of Gene nodes, E1 is the set of pairwise gene co-expression relationships defined by the Pearson correlation (PCC ≥ 0.86), and ρ is the phenotype label which can be Coexpression_HCC or Coexpression_Liver.
- G2(V2, E2,
![[var epsilon]](/corehtml/pmc/pmcents/epsiv.gif) ) is the protein interaction network where V2 is the set of Protein nodes, E2 is the set of pairwise protein interactions, and is the interaction type which can be Human_Protein_Interaction or HBV_Human_ Interaction. - G3(V31
![[union or logical sum]](/corehtml/pmc/pmcents/x222A.gif) V32, E3) is the microRNA regulatory network where V31 is the set of MIRNA nodes, V32 is the set of Gene nodes, and E3 is the set of predicted pairwise microRNA-to-Gene interactions. Given that there are two sets of inter-connected nodes, G3 is a bipartite graph. - G4(V41 V42, E4) is the GO Process-to-Gene network where V41 is the set of GO Process nodes, V42 is the set of Gene nodes, and E4 is the set of semiotic relationships between the GO Process and Gene nodes. Given that there are two sets of inter-connected nodes, G4 is a bipartite graph.
- G5 and G6 are the GO Function-to-Gene and GO Component-to-Gene networks respectively. Their graph theoretic definition is similar to that of G4. It should be noted that GO Component is being classified as an actor rather than a semiotic node because it is an abstraction of a physical intracellular structure.
The output network G is therefore the union of G1, …, G6. - G = i=1k Gi where k = 6
1. But DY, Lai CL, Yuen MF. Natural history of hepatitis-related hepatocellular carcinoma. World J. Gasteroenterol. 2008;14:1652–6. 2. Hsu CN, Lai JM, Tseng HH, et al. Detection of the inferred interaction network in hepatocellular carcinoma from EHCO (Encyclopedia of Hepatocellular Carcinoma genes Online). BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:66. [PubMed] 3. Christensen C, et al. Thakar J, Albert R. Systems-level insights into cellular regulation: inferring, analyzing, and modeling intracellular networks. IET Syst. Biol. 2007;1:61–77. [PubMed] 4. Tuck DP, Kluger HM, Kluger Y. Characterizing disease states from topological properties of transcriptional regulatory networks. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:236. [PubMed] 5. Chuang HY, Lee E, Liu YT, Lee D, Ideker T. Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007;3:140. [PubMed] 6. Law J. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Syst. Prac. Action Res. 1992;5:379–93. 7. Ieta K, et al. Ojima E, Tanaka F, et al. Identification of over-expressed genes in hepatocellular carcinoma, with special reference to ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C gene expression. Int. J. Cancer. 2007;121:33–8. [PubMed] 8. Castro A, et al. Bernis C, Vigneron S, et al. The anaphase-promoting complex: a key factor in the regulation of cell cycle. Oncogene. 2005;24:314–25. [PubMed] 9. Rape M, et al. Reddy SK, Kirschner MW. The processivity of multi-ubiquitination by APC determines the order of substrate degradation. Cell. 2006;124:89–103. [PubMed] 10. Ekholm-Reed S, Méndez J, Tedesco D, et al. Deregulation of cyclin E in human cells interferes with prereplication complex assembly. J. Cell. Biol. 2004;156:789–800. 11. Bartholin L, et al. Wessner LL, Chirgwin JM, Guise TA. The human Cyr61 gene is a transcriptional target of transforming growth factor beta in cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 2006;246:230–6. [PubMed] 12. Kunz M, Ibrahim SM. Molecular responses to hypoxia in tumor cells. Mol. Cancer. 2003;2:23–6. [PubMed] 13. Perbel B. CCN. proteins: multifunctional signaling regulators. Lancet. 2004;363:62–4. [PubMed] 14. Chen PP, Li WJ, Wang Y, et al. Expression of Cyr61, CTGF, and WISP-1 Correlates with Clinical Features of Lung Cancer. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e5. 15. Murakami Y, et al. Yasuda T, Saigo K, et al. Comprehensive analysis of micro-RNA expression patterns in hepatocellular carcinoma and non-tumorous tissues. Oncogene. 2006;25:2537–45. [PubMed] 16. Kerbel RS. Supplement to: Tumor angiogenesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:2039–49. [PubMed] 17. Chung TW, Lee YC, Kim CH. Hepatitis B viral HBx induces matrix metalloproteinase-9 gene expression through activation of ERKs and PI-3K/AKT pathways. FASEB J. 2004;18:1123–5. [PubMed] 18. Wang XW, Budhu AS. Loading and Unloading: orchestrating centrosome duplication and spindle assembly by Ran/Crm1. Cell Cycle. 2005;4:1510–4. [PubMed] 19. Planque N. Nuclear trafficking of secreted factors and cell-surface receptors. Cell. Comm. and Signaling. 2006;4:7–25. 20. Johnson HM, Subramaniam PS, Olsnes S, Jans DA. Trafficking and signaling pathways of nuclear localizing protein ligands and their receptors. Bioessays. 2004;26:993–1004. [PubMed] 21. Schausberger E, et al. Eferi R, Parzefall W, et al. Induction of DNA synthesis in primary mouse hepatocytes is associated with nuclear pro-transforming growth factor alpha and erbb-1 and is independent of c-jun. Carcinogenesis. 2003;24:835–41. [PubMed] 22. Dittmann K, et al. Mayer C, Fehranbacher B, et al. Radiation-induced epidermal growth factor receptor nuclear import is linked to activation of DNA-dependent protein kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 2005;280:31182–9. [PubMed] 23. Antoine M, et al. Reimers K, Wirz W, et al. Fibroblast growth factor 3, a protein with a dual subcellular fate, is interacting with human ribosomal protein S2. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005;338:1248–55. [PubMed] 24. Dittmann K, et al. Mayer C, Rodemann HP. Inhibition of radiation-induced EGFR. nuclear import by C225 (Cetuximab) suppresses DNA-PK activity. Radiother. Oncol. 2005;76:157–61. [PubMed] 26. Coller HA, Sang L, Roberts JM. A new description of cellular quiescence. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e83. [PubMed] 27. Barabási AL, Oltvai Z. Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat. Rev. Genetics. 2004;5:101–13. [PubMed] 28. Yu H, et al. Kim PM, Sprecher E, Trifonov V, Gerstein M. The importance of bottlenecks in protein networks: correlation with gene essentiality and expression dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2007;3:e59. [PubMed] 29. Goh KI, Cusick ME, Valle D, et al. The human disease network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008;104:8685–90. 30. Zotenko E, et al. Mestre J, O’Leary DP, Przytycka TM. Why do hubs in the yeast protein interaction network tend to be essential: Reexamining the connection between the network topology and essentiality. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2008;4:e1000140. [PubMed] 31. Beerenwinkel N, et al. Antal T, Dingli D, et al. Genetic progression and the waiting time to cancer. PLoS. Comput. Biol. 2007;3:e225. [PubMed] 32. Cui Q, et al. Ma Y, Jaramillo M, et al. A map of human cancer signaling. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007;3:152. [PubMed] 33. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat. Med. 2004;10:789–99. [PubMed] 34. Cui Q, et al. Yu Z, Purisma EO, Wang E. Principles of microRNA regulation of a human cellular signaling network. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2006;2:46. [PubMed] 35. Legewie S, et al. Blüthgen N, Schäfer R, Herzel H. Ultra-sensitization: switch-like regulation of cellular signaling by transcriptional induction. PLoS. Comput. Biol. 2005;1:e54. [PubMed] 36. Gamberoni G, et al. Storari S, Volinia S. Finding biological process modifi cations in cancer tissues by mining gene expression correlations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:6. [PubMed] 37. Chen X, et al. Cheung ST, So S, et al. Gene expression patterns in human liver cancers. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2002;13:1929–39. [PubMed] 38. Luo F, et al. Yang Y, Zhong J, et al. Constructing gene co-expression networks and predicting functions of unknown genes by random matrix theory. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:299. [PubMed] 39. Bandrés E, Cubedo E, Agirre X, et al. Identification by real-time PCR of 13 mature microRNAs differentially expressed in colorectal cancer and non-tumoral tissues. Mol. Cancer. 2006;5:29. [PubMed] 40. Szafranska AE, Davison TS, John J, et al. MicroRNA expression alterations are linked to tumorigenesis and non-neoplastic processes in pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Oncogene. 2007;26:1–11. [PubMed] 41. Xi Y, et al. Edwards J, Ju J. Investigation of miRNA biology by bioinformatics tools and impact of miRNAs in colorectal cancer—regulatory relationship of c-Myc and p53 with miRNAs. Cancer Informatics. 2007;3:245–53. [PubMed] 42. Gene Ontology Consortiu. The Gene Ontology (GO) project in 2006. Nuclei Acids Res. (database issue). 2006;34:D322–326. 43. Stark C, et al. Breitkreutz BJ, Reguly T, et al. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nuclei Acids Res. 2006;34:D535–539. 44. Borgatti S. Lecture notes MB.101 Emergent groups. 2004 45. Eckmann JP, Moses E. Curvature of co-links uncovers hidden thematic layers in the world wide web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002;99:5825–9. [PubMed] 46. Junker BH, Koschützki D, Schreiber F. Exploration of biological network centralities with CentiBiN. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:219. [PubMed] 47. Estrada E. Virtual identification of essential proteins within the protein interaction network of yeast. Proteomics. 2006;6:35–40. [PubMed] 48. Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4. Springer Press; 2002.
|
Semiotic Network
