Volume 16 Supplement 19
NERI: network-medicine based integrative approach for disease gene prioritization by relative importance
© Simões et al. 2015
Published: 16 December 2015
Complex diseases are characterized as being polygenic and multifactorial, so this poses a challenge regarding the search for genes related to them. With the advent of high-throughput technologies for genome sequencing, gene expression measurements (transcriptome), and protein-protein interactions, complex diseases have been sistematically investigated. Particularly, Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) networks have been used to prioritize genes related to complex diseases according to its topological features. However, PPI networks are affected by ascertainment bias, in which more studied proteins tend to have more connections, degrading the results quality. Additionally, methods using only PPI networks can provide only static and non-specific results, since the topologies of these networks are not specific of a given disease.
The goal of this work is to develop a methodology that integrates PPI networks with disease specific data sources, such as GWAS and gene expression, to find genes more specific of a given complex disease. After the integration of PPI networks and gene expression data, the resulting network is used to connect genes related to the disease through the shortest paths that have the greatest concordance between their gene expressions. Both case and control expression data are used separately and, at the end, the most altered genes between the two conditions are selected. To evaluate the method, schizophrenia was adopted as case study.
Results show that the proposed method successfully retrieves differentially coexpressed genes in two conditions, while avoiding the bias from literature. Moreover we were able to achieve a greater concordance in the selection of important genes from different microarray studies of the same disease and to produce a more specific gene set related to the studied disease.
KeywordsNetwork-Medicine relative importance gene prioritization complex diseases PPI network
Prioritization of relevant genes associated with complex diseases is a significant challenge, because such diseases are polygenic and multifactorial. In addition, patients with the same complex disease can present different genetic perturbations . With the advent of high-throughput technologies for genome sequencing, gene expression measurements (transcriptome), and protein-protein interactions mapping, complex diseases have been sistematically investigated. Genomewide association studies (GWAS) is an approach that has improved our comprehension of the genetic basis of many complex traits . However, it fails in revealing the relatively small effect sizes found in most genetic variants [3, 4]. Other studies suggest that combining GWAS approach with transcriptome analyses, such as eQTL mapping, reduces the number of false positives and helps the discovery of new functional loci [5, 6].
Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks have also become an important tool to study the complex molecular relationships in a living organism. Barabási et al  summarized a series of hypotheses and principles (Network Medicine Hypotheses) which link topological properties of PPI networks to biological functionalities. Some of these hypotheses are often used to prioritize candidate genes related to a given disease. We highlight three hypotheses:
• disease module hypothesis: genes products associated to the same disease phenotype tend to form a cluster in the PPI network;
• network parsimony: shortest paths between known disease genes often coincide with disease pathways;
• local hypothesis: gene products associated with similar diseases are likely to strongly interact with each other.
In fact, many recent works have analyzed topological properties of PPI networks to comprehend genetic diseases assuming the Network Medicine hypotheses [7–10]. Such methods take as input a PPI network, a set of seeds (usually originated from GWAS) and candidate genes and output a set of candidates ranked by a score. They can be categorized in two main approaches: (i) local (e.g. direct neighbors and shortest paths - ) and (ii) global (e.g random walk with restart [8, 9, 12] and network propagation ). Kohler et al  proposed to use random walks with restart (RWR) method to prioritize candidate disease genes. Vanunu et al  proposed to use network propagation method, a slight variation of RWR.
Nevertheless, PPI networks data are noisy and incomplete [13, 14], which impact the accuracy of the candidate gene prioritization methods. Besides, largely studied proteins tend to be highly connected, which are favored by methods relying on topological properties assessment. Thus, due to this issue - usually called "ascertainment bias" - genes that are not well studied, hardly appear among the top ranked ones . Erten et al  proposed statistical adjustments to the RWR method in order to address the 'ascertainment bias', in which well studied genes tend to be favored by methods based on PPI just because of their high connectivity degree. This method intends to detect both high and low degree related genes instead of only the higher degree genes in the seeds neighborhood. However, like other aforementioned methods, it is based solely on the static PPI network and seed proteins information.
To properly understand the mechanisms underlying complex diseases, techniques involving integrative analysis of data originated from many sources have been developed. There is a lot of genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data available from different complex diseases in public databases. To improve the identification and prioritization of genes associated with complex diseases, some works began to integrate PPI networks with information derived from other omics data, which have contributed to a better understanding of gene functions, interactions, and pathways [16, 17]. The integration of PPI networks and gene expression data has improved disease classification and identification of disease specific deregulated pathways [9, 16–20]. The reader is referred to  for a survey of these integrative approaches. However, the resulting gene lists from different studies almost does not present overlap.
In this paper, we proposed a methodology that integrates data from association studies (GWAS), gene expression profiles and PPI datasets. Then, by assuming the Network Medicine hypotheses, given a set of seed genes (obtained by GWAS) the method analyzes its neighborhood by retrieving all shortest paths between them and their direct neighbors. Next, the method selects those shortest paths that present the largest gene expression concordance among the genes in the paths. This is performed separately in two conditions (case and control) generating two networks, in which each gene (and interaction) is scored taking into account its (a) distance from seeds; (b) the gene expression concordance (of the genes in the paths to which it belongs); and (c) its frequency across the paths. Finally the method analyzes the differences between the networks under two conditions to select the most altered genes (and interactions) according to the score aforementioned.
There is an increasing usage of systems biology approaches in psychiatric diseases as they are considered complex diseases. In the psychiatric field there are databases of autism [22, 23], schizophrenia  and Alzheimer's disease  trying to integrate information from different sources of studies: GWAS, transcriptome and Interactome, etc. To validate our method we adopted schizophrenia data as case study. Schizophrenia is a major psychiatric disease affecting ~1% of the world population. It is commonly considered a complex disease with multiple genetic and environmental factors involved. However, genetic factors impact substantially on the risk of developing the disease, with an estimated heritability of ~80% . Jia et al  used data from different schizophrenia studies: Association, Linkage, Expression, Literature search, Gene Ontology and Gene Network. For most data categories, gene score was calculated based on P-values, while for literature search they assigned score for a gene based on the number of keywords being hit in the search. Similarly, a score was assigned to a gene based on the number of neuro-related GO terms annotated to the gene. Then the genes were ranked based on the weighted average of such scores. They verified that several previous works found genes related to schizophrenia, but the overlap among those sets of genes is very small. The overlap of genes coming from transcriptome analysis compared to genes coming from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are almost null. Therefore, integration of different datasources is still an open problem in the psychobiology of schizophrenia. By applying our method to 3 different gene expression schizophrenia studies, it successfully retrieved differentially coexpressed genes in two conditions, while avoiding the ascertainment bias. Additionally, the proposed method could obtain a greater replicability in the selection of important genes from different microarray studies of the same disease and to produce a more specific gene set related to the studied disease.
Materials and methods
The PPI network was integrated as described in the section Data integration. We used 3 different PPI datasets: (i) HPRD (Human Protein Reference Database) ; (ii) IntAct (IntAct Molecular Interaction Database) ; (iii) MINT (Molecular Interaction database) . The gene expression datasets were obtained from SNCID (Stanley Neuropathology Consortium Integrative Database) . In SNCID there exist several neuropathological datasets, from which three schizophrenia gene expression database were selected for the experiments: KATO (35 control and 34 disease samples), ALTARC (33 control and 34 disease samples) and BAHN (29 control and 21 disease samples). The normalization of these datasets was performed by Affymetrix package using RMA [31, 32] in R language.
We adopted as seeds (disease-related genes) a set of 38 genes (called 'core genes') obtained from the SZGR database , since such genes presented significant meta-analyses results from disease association studies. Among these 'core genes', 30 were present in the main connected component of the composed PPI network.
Since there are several human PPI network datasets available, some of these network datasets are combined to obtain a unique PPI network. Then, proteins and transcripts are mapped to their corresponding coding genes (gene symbols). Since more than one transcript can be mapped to the same gene, the gene expression profile is represented by the median of its transcripts expression. In this way, we compose the PPI network by integrating it with the gene expression data - keeping only genes that belong to both. From now on, in the context of PPI networks, we will use the term 'gene' referring to their respective proteins.
By assuming local, disease module and parsimony principle hipotheses, this step extracts features of the genes in the neighborhood of the seeds aiming to discover genes potentially related to the disease in study. Following the local hypothesis, the set of seeds S is grown to include their neighbors N (direct interactions), obtaining a new set S ∪ N. Then, by following the network parsimony principle, the two sets S and S ∪ N are connected by shortest paths, leading to a subnetwork representing the neighborhood of the seed genes. All genes in this neighborhood are considered candidates to be related to the disease.
Shortest paths selection
According to the disease module hypothesis, genes related to the same disease tend to compose modules in regions of PPI network. Several works use the shortest path algorithm to infer biological pathways and/or subnetworks with groups of genes related to the disease, showing that many intermediate genes are also related to the disease [33–38].
Between a pair of genes in the human PPI network there may be several possible shortest paths, and some of these paths can be much more valuable than others from the biological perspective. Assuming that genes more correlated with the seed genes tend to be associated with the disease , a criterion that evaluates a given shortest path based on the coexpression of its genes among them and the seeds is desirable. In this way, we adopted a modified version of Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W max ) to measure the overall expression concordance among the genes of a given path [40, 41] (see Kendall's Concordance Coefficient next).
When selecting the best shortest path for a given pair of genes, the problem of ties arise, where multiple shortest paths might have the same (or almost the same) W max value. Thus, to avoid losing important information about biologically relevant shortest paths, a factor ε is defined to include all paths P i which present concordance value W max (P i ) ≥ W max (P*)(1 - ε), where P* is the path with the best concordance value for a given pair of genes. For instance, suppose that W max (P*) = 0, 6 and ε = 0, 05 for a given gene pair. Then all shortest paths presenting W max ≥ 0.6 × (1 - 0.05) = 0.57 are considered tied with the best one and thus included as the best shortest paths for the considered gene pair.
Kendall's Concordance Coefficient
To compute the Kendall's Concordance Coefficient W value independently of genes being up or down-regulated, we did an adaptation on the computation of this coefficient, in which all possible ranking inversions are considered. The ranking inversion which maximizes the concordance W among the genes is chosen, resulting in the modified value W max for a given path - this is the criterion adopted to evaluate the coexpression of a path. This criterion is taken into account to select the best shortest paths for a given gene pair as aforementioned.
Genes scoring in a given condition
where d sg is the distance between nodes s and g in the PPI, is the set of selected shortest paths from s to t, and is the indicator function which returns 1 if g belongs to P st and 0 otherwise.
The first term , similar to closeness, seeks to penalize the distance between a given gene g and a seed s. The greater the distance to s the lower the importance of the gene g. The second term (W max ) seeks to measure the concordance of gene expression profiles of the selected shortest paths containing gene g. Thus, this term seeks to benefit genes belonging to highly correlated shortest paths in terms of gene expression. The last term () just means that the score of a gene g will be increased according to the multiplication of the first two terms if g belongs to P st . This equation assumes additivity of seeds contribution to the score of a given gene. It is applied to control and disease sub-networks to compare the scores of a given gene in two conditions (resulting in two gene score values σ C (g) and σ D (g), for control and disease conditions respectively).
The alteration score Δseeks to measure the relative difference of the scores σ C (g) and σ D (g) between two conditions (control and disease). It varies from -1 to +1, where the negative values mean the control score is larger than disease score and the positive means the opposite. Values close to zero mean almost null difference between σ C (g) and σ D (g). When assessing relatives differences, in principle genes with larger absolute Δ(g) values would be more altered, but large values in denominator (X(g) = σ C (g) + σ D (g)) present smaller variations in the Δ(g) score - which is a similar problem found in classifying differentially expressed genes by using MA-plot (where large values of A present smaller variations in M). Indeed, genes with high (X(g) = σ C (g) + σ D (g)) values tend to present smaller Δ(g) scores. Hence, the idea is to differentially select genes according to their X values.
In this way, small values of X (which tend to present larger variations of alterations) are divided by a larger denominator, and as X increases (and tend to present smaller alteration values), such denominator decreases to compensates the effect of smaller alterations presented by larger X. The Δ'(g) signal indicates in which condition a given gene g has a larger score. For ranking purposes, the larger the abolute value |Δ'(g)|, the better the gene g.
Results and discussion
After the integration of PPI and gene expression datasets, the resulting network contained 9,554 nodes and 61,998 interactions.
Parameter values adopted in the experiments.
Sliding window length. Such window defines the intervals in which the points will be considered to calculate the interquartile range values (IQR).
Sliding window step size.
Threshold for which only genes with X = (σ C + σ D ) larger than this value are considered in the analysis.
Factor used to deal with ties.
Methods comparison (DADA vs RWR vs X vs Δ')
This section presents a comparative analysis involving DADA and RWR methods. Our proposed method outputs the scores X and Δ', which are both involved in this analysis. To facilitate the explanation, from now on we call X and Δ' as "methods", even though they are only resulting values of the same method.
Given lists containing the top N genes ranked by each method, we analyze how many genes are in the intersection between such rankings and how much similar are the ranking orders of the genes in common. We also compare the top N rankings of the four methods with the ranking obtained by gene/protein degree in decreasing order (the degree of a given protein is its number of interactions in the PPI network). We use expression data from KATO study in these analyses, since similar results were obtained by using expression data from ALTARC and BAHN studies (results not shown).
There exist some important differences between DADA and Δ' methods. In one hand, DADA aims to alleviate the ascertainment bias, but it does not worry about the differential alteration between two conditions. That is the reason by which it retrieves some genes that are not differentially altered (represented by gray dots in Figure 2). On the other hand, the score Δ' successfully retrieves differentially coexpressed genes and, at the same time, alleviates the ascertainment bias, since several genes with large X were not selected. In this way, by integrating different sources of biological data, our method can provide more specific results according to the differential coexpression of the genes (under two conditions).
Intersections and correlations of the rankings obtained by DADA, RWR, X and Δ'
We observe that, for a small number of top genes considered (N ≤ 100), the intersection between DADA and RWR lists is remarkedly high (about 0.8), while the intersections between the remaining pairs of methods start relatively small and gradually increases with N. For the same considered domain (N ≤ 100), intense fluctuations in correlations of genes belonging to the intersections between the pairs of methods can be observed. This is expected, since for N ≤ 50, most of the intersections (except for DADA vs RWR) are very low, containing at most 3 genes, for which the correlations are not meaningful. Thus, small lists are prone to large correlation fluctuations. These fluctuations decrease as the intersection lists increase. For N ≥ 100, all curves for both intersection and correlation tend to stabilize. Although the intersection between DADA and RWR is overcome by the intersection between X and RWR for X ≥ 360, we notice that the correlation between DADA and RWR remains the largest (about 0.84). This is expected since DADA performs a statistical adjustment aiming to insert some genes with relatively small degree to the resulting list from RWR. In this way, the intersection between DADA and RWR is high in the beginning and tends to decrease as N increases. In its turn, the correlation between DADA and RWR is high in the beginning (N ≥ 30), followed by a decrease (N ∈ [31, 38]) due to the insertion of genes resulting from DADA adjustment. After that, the correlation tends to increase until converging to approximately 0.84.
Additionally, the smallest intersections and correlations involved Δ', which is expected since Δ' was idealized to capture alterations between control and disease. The largest intersection involving Δ' was with X (about 0.53) and the least one was with DADA (about 0.38). From N = 400 on, correlation between Δ' and all methods were small: about 0.1 with DADA, about 0.2 with RWR, and about 0.35 with X. This suggests that Δ' tends to capture novel genes (differentially co-expressed in both conditions) that are not obtained by other methods. Regarding X, even though it considers coexpression and location with regard to the seeds as the main factors, these are not considered in a differential way, resulting in moderated correlations with DADA and RWR.
Intersections and correlations of Degree with (DADA, RWR, X, Δ')
We observe that, for a small number of top genes considered (N ≤ 100), the intersection between Degree and X is the largest (varying between 0.21 and 0.46), while the intersections between Degree and other methods begin close to zero and gradually increase with N until reach the values 0.28, 0.21 and 0.19, respectively for RWR, Δ' and DADA. In the same interval, great fluctuations in the correlations of the Degree ranking with method rankings, due to the fact most of intersections are relatively small. For N ≥ 200, the correlation curves begin to stabilize presenting less fluctuations. It is also possible to notice that the intersection between Degree and X is overcome by intersection between degree and RWR from N = 450, which shows that RWR tends to incorporate into its list a larger proportion of genes with large degree as N increases. The rankings achieved by Δ' and DADA present relatively small values of intersection and correlation with Degree along the whole domain. For N ≥ 200, although the intersection between Δ' and Degree is slightly larger than the intersection between DADA and Degree, the correlation between Δ' and Degree present values slightly less or equal to the correlation between DADA and Degree.
At this point, we recall that the score X aims to find genes coexpressed in the neighborhood of the seeds in one or both conditions (control and disease). In the proposed method, even though the selection the shortest paths depends in great part on coexpression of the genes with the seed, genes with high degree and highly coexpressed tend to be prioritized by X, since such genes usually participate in many shortest paths between the seeds. Thus, X tends to achieve highly coexpressed and connected genes in the neighborhood of the seeds, which suggests that X is appropriate to find PARTY HUBS (proteins highly co-expressed with their partners, acting as local coordinators) . For example, by fixing N = 100 and comparing genes belonging to the intersections (Degree ∩ X) and (Degree ∩ RWR), we observe that 27 out of 28 genes belonging to (Degree ∩ RWR) also belong to (Degree ∩ X), but (Degree ∩ X) possesses 43 genes from which 16 genes do not belong to (Degree ∩ RWR). However, we found that most of these 16 genes (NR3C1, GABARAPL1, UBC, TRAF6, APP, YWHAQ, EPB41, CTNNB1, MAPK1, IKBKG, PIK3R1, IKBKE, HSP90AA1, MDM2, RELA and ATF2.) are strongly related to schizophrenia [46–50]. This indicates that X captures more high degree genes related to the disease than RWR does. Another aspect to highlight regarding such intersections is that from N = 480 on, the intersection between x and Degree stabilizes, while RWR continues to present increasing intersection with Degree. This indicates that RWR is more prone to ascertainment bias.
Regarding the intersections of Δ' and DADA with Degree, they were smaller, which suggests that these scores are less prone to the ascertainment bias. Besides, it is important to highlight that the ranking achieved by DADA is strongly based on RWR ranking, except by the fact that the first tries to prioritize small degree genes in certain conditions. Recalling that Δ' seeks to prioritize the coexpression differences (with the seeds) of the genes in the selected shortest paths under two conditions (control and disease). Therefore, Δ' is more adequate to discover novel genes associated with a given disease.
Replication of KATO, ALTARC and BAHN studies
Note that the intersection among the three lists contains 129 genes, which represents approximately 46.9% of the average number of genes per list. This number is remarkable, since the number of genes expected if the lists were obtained at random would be about 3, which correponds to about 0.1% (10% × 10% × 10%) of the average number of genes per study, since the three lists have approximately the same size. It is important to highlight that the genes belonging to this intersection are those which present desirable topological and coexpression characteristics (including differential co-expression between control and disease cases), not only for one, but for all three studies. A biological analysis of this list of 129 genes is presented in the next section.
For the biological analyses, we submitted the considered gene lists to GO and KEGG analyses available in WebGestalt (WEB-based GEne SeT AnaLysis Toolkit - http://bioinfo.vanderbilt.edu/webgestalt/). In this way, we performed functional, hyper-represented pathways, and disease association analyses of the obtained genes.
List of top 10% genes ranked by Δ'for the KATO study
First, we analyzed the top 10% (265) genes ranked by Δ' for the KATO study. By performing GO analysis over this list of genes, searching the top 10 over represented biological functions with more than 10 genes per function and adjP < 0.05 (adjP: p-value adjusted by the multiple test adjustment). We observed the following functions as over represented: regulation of signal transduction (adjP = 1.95e-24); nerve growth factor receptor signaling pathway (adjP = 3.77e-24); intracellular protein kinase cascade (adjP = 2.07e-25); protein phosphorilation (adjP = 3.77e-24).
Using the same parameters described above on the KEGG analysis the important over represented pathways were: neurotrophin signaling pathways (adjP = 1.85e-33); pathways in cancer (adjP = 2.55e-32); MAPK signaling pathway (adjP = 2.7e-31); focal adhesion (adjP = 3.60e-28) and ErbB signaling pathway (adjP = 8.66e-25) - (see supplementary Table S1). We also performed an over represented analysis of diseases. It is noteworthy that cancer, stress, skin disorders and different psychiatry disorders were over represented (see supplementary Table S2). The aforementioned analyses were also performed using the top 10% genes ranked by score X, and the results were similar, regarding aspects of biological pathways (results not shown).
Intersection among 3 studies - ranked by Δ'
In addition, we performed in these 129 genes an enrichment analysis representing the most important genes related to schizophrenia. As expected, the biological process and KEGG enrichment analysis (with more than 10 genes in each category and an adjusted P-value < 0.05) were similar to our previous analysis, since all 129 genes in this list are contained in the list of 265 genes obtained from KATO study. However, it is noteworthy that, in the first analysis, nothing specific related to neurons appear with such stringent criteria, but using the 129 genes (from intersection of 3 studies) in the cellular component enrichment analysis, neuron projections (adjP = 8.3e-19) were over represented. Another important point is that the disease enrichment analysis from the 129 genes also presented cancer, stress, neurodegenerative disorders and other psychiatric disorders.
We conclude with our biological analysis that our method is able to select genes already related to schizophrenia, as well as point new genes and pathways that can provide good candidates. Also we observe that our method achieves a great overlap (46,9%) among different studies that, by using only conventional methods which perform differential expression analyses, achieved almost null intersection among the resulting lists. In addition to achieve a concordance among studies, the method was also able to select a more restricted set of genes related to a specific disorder.
In this work, we presented an integrative approach combining data from gene expression, PPI network and GWAS to prioritize genes potentially related to complex diseases. By assuming some network medicine hypothesis, the method explores the neighborhood of a gene set by locating paths possessing more coexpressed genes with seeds - this is independently performed for two conditions (control and disease). Our method outputs two scores X and Δ'. The first one (X) prioritizes genes with party hub features, possessing high topological centrality and, at the same time, high coexpression relative to the seed genes. The second one (Δ') prioritizes the most altered genes between two conditions. We performed a comparative analysis involving our method and two state-of-art methods (RWR and DADA) by using schizophrenia as case study. Results showed that our method (both scores X and Δ') complements RWR and DADA by obtaining genes which present a good balance between topological centrality and differential gene coexpression. Additionally, similarly to DADA, the score Δ' does not present the ascertainment bias problem. However, our method does not require parameters adjustment and, at the same time, achieves a great replicability in the selection of important genes from different microarray studies of the same disease, producing a more specific gene set related to the studied disorder. Besides, the score Δ' prioritized genes belonging to biological pathways highly related to schizophrenia, indicating that this score could be used for gene discovering. On the other hand, the score X prioritized genes related to schizophrenia that are highly referred by literature. Therefore, by integrating gene coexpression with PPI network, our method achieves more specific and restrictive results which can allow gene discovering. Besides, both methods presented high replicability results among three different microarray studies
We would like to thank IFES, FAPESP grants # 2010/52138-8 and # 2011/50761-2, CNPq, CAPES, NAP eScience PRP - USP for financial support. The publication charges for this article were funded by FAPESP grant # 2011/50761-2.
This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 16 Supplement 19, 2015: Brazilian Symposium on Bioinformatics 2014. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcbioinformatics/supplements/16/S19
- Schadt EE: Molecular networks as sensors and drivers of common human diseases. Nature. 2009, 461 (7261): 218-23. doi:10.1038/nature08454View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McCarthy MI, Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, Goldstein DB, Little J, Ioannidis JPa, Hirschhorn JN: Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nature reviews Genetics. 2008, 9 (5): 356-69. doi:10.1038/nrg2344View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H: Analysing biological pathways in genome-wide association studies. Nature reviews. Genetics. 2010, 11 (12): 843-54. doi:10.1038/nrg2884View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Solovieff N, Cotsapas C, Lee PH, Purcell SM, Smoller JW: Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nature reviews. Genetics. 2013, 14 (7): 483-95. doi:10.1038/nrg3461View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Li L, Kabesch M, Bouzigon E, Demenais F, Farrall M, Moffatt MF, Lin X, Liang L: Using eQTL weights to improve power for genome-wide association studies: a genetic study of childhood asthma. Frontiers in genetics. 2013, 4 (May): 103-doi:10.3389/fgene.2013.00103PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nica AC, Dermitzakis ET: Expression quantitative trait loci: present and future. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 2013, 368 (1620): 20120362-doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0362View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Barabási A-l, Gulbahce N, Loscalzo J: Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease. Nature reviews. Genetics. 2011, 12 (1): 56-68. doi:10.1038/nrg2918View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kohler S, Bauer S, Horn D, Robinson PN, Ko S: Walking the Interactome for Prioritization of Candidate Disease Genes. Journal of Human Genetics. 2008, 82 (April): 949-958. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.02.013View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen J, Aronow BJ, Jegga AG: Disease candidate gene identification and prioritization using protein interaction networks. BMC bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 73-doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-73View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Vanunu O, Magger O, Ruppin E, Shlomi T, Sharan R: Associating genes and protein complexes with disease via network propagation. PLoS computational biology. 2010, 6 (1): 100064-doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000641View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wu X, Jiang R, Zhang MQ, Li S: Network-based global inference of human disease genes. Molecular systems biology. 2008, 4 (189): 189-doi:10.1038/msb.2008.27PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tong H, Faloutsos C, Pan J-Y: Random walk with restart: fast solutions and applications. Knowledge and Information Systems. 2007, 14 (3): 327-346. doi:10.1007/s10115-007-0094-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Edwards AM, Kus B, Jansen R, Greenbaum D, Greenblatt J, Gerstein M: Bridging structural biology and genomics: assessing protein interaction data with known complexes. Drug discovery today. 2004, 9 (2 Suppl): 32-40.Google Scholar
- Hart GT, Ramani AK, Marcotte EM: How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks?. Genome biology. 2006, 7 (11): 120-doi:10.1186/gb-2006-7-11-120View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Erten S, Bebek G, Ewing RM, Koyutürk M: DADA: Degree-Aware Algorithms for Network-Based Disease Gene Prioritization. BioData mining. 2011, 4 (1): 19-doi:10.1186/1756-0381-4-19View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kim Y-a, Wuchty S, Przytycka TM: Identifying causal genes and dysregulated pathways in complex diseases. PLoS computational biology. 2011, 7 (3): 1001095-doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001095View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ulitsky I, Karp R: Detecting disease-specific dysregulated pathways via analysis of clinical expression profiles. Research in Computational Molecular Biology. 2008, 4955: 347-359.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Franke L, van Bakel H, Fokkens L, de Jong ED, Egmont-Petersen M, Wijmenga C: Reconstruction of a functional human gene network, with an application for prioritizing positional candidate genes. American journal of human genetics. 2006, 78 (6): 1011-25. doi:10.1086/504300View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Suthram S, Beyer A, Karp RM, Eldar Y, Ideker T: eQED: an efficient method for interpreting eQTL associations using protein networks. Molecular systems biology. 2008, 4 (162): 162-doi:10.1038/msb.2008.4PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Keller A, Backes C, Gerasch A, Kaufmann M, Kohlbacher O, Meese E, Lenhof H-P: A novel algorithm for detecting differentially regulated paths based on gene set enrichment analysis. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2009, 25 (21): 2787-94. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp510View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mitra K, Carvunis A-R, Ramesh SK, Ideker T: Integrative approaches for finding modular structure in biological networks. Nature reviews. Genetics. 2013, 14 (10): 719-32. doi:10.1038/nrg3552View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Xu L-m, Li J-R, Huang Y, Zhao M, Tang X, Wei L: AutismKB: an evidence-based knowledgebase of autism genetics. Nucleic acids research. 2012, 40 (Database): 1016-22. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1145View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Basu SN, Kollu R, Banerjee-Basu S: AutDB: a gene reference resource for autism research. Nucleic acids research. 2009, 37 (Database): 832-6. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn835View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kim S, Webster MJ: The stanley neuropathology consortium integrative database: a novel, web-based tool for exploring neuropathological markers in psychiatric disorders and the biological processes associated with abnormalities of those markers. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010, 35 (2): 473-82. doi:10.1038/npp.2009.151View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Higgs BW, Elashoff M, Richman S, Barci B: An online database for brain disease research. BMC genomics. 2006, 7: 70-doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-70View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sullivan PPF, Kendler KS, Neale MC: Schizophrenia as a complex trait: evidence from a meta-analysis of twin studies. Archives of general psychiatry. 2003, 60 (12): 1187-92. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.12.1187View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jia P, Sun J, Guo aY, Zhao Z: SZGR: a comprehensive schizophrenia gene resource. Molecular psychiatry. 2010, 15 (5): 453-62. doi:10.1038/mp.2009.93View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Prasad TSK, Goel R, Kandasamy K, Keerthikumar S, Kumar S, Mathivanan S, Telikicherla D, Raju R, Shafreen B, Venugopal A, Keshava Prasad TS, Balakrishnan L, Marimuthu A, Banerjee S, Somanathan DS, Sebastian A, Rani S, Ray S, Harrys Kishore CJ, Kanth S, Ahmed M, Kashyap MK, Mohmood R, Ramachandra YL, Krishna V, Rahiman BA, Mohan S, Ranganathan P, Ramabadran S, Chaerkady R, Pandey A: Human Protein Reference Database - 2009 update. Nucleic Acids Research. 2009, 37 (Database issue): 767-772. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn892View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kerrien S, Aranda B, Breuza L, Bridge A, Broackes-Carter F, Chen C, Duesbury M, Dumousseau M, Feuermann M, Hinz U, Jandrasits C, Jimenez RC, Khadake J, Mahadevan U, Masson P, Pedruzzi I, Pfeiffenberger E, Porras P, Raghunath A, Roechert B, Orchard S, Hermjakob H: The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2012. Nucleic acids research. 2012, 40 (Database issue): 841-6. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1088View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Licata L, Briganti L, Peluso D, Perfetto L, Iannuccelli M, Galeota E, Sacco F, Palma A, Nardozza AP, Santonico E, Castagnoli L, Cesareni G: MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2012 update. Nucleic acids research. 2012, 40 (Database): 857-61. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr930View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA, Astrand M, Speed TP: A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2003, 19 (2): 185-93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Irizarry Ra, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-Barclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, Speed TP: Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics (Oxford, England). 2003, 4 (2): 249-64. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aittokallio T, Schwikowski B: Graph-based methods for analysing networks in cell biology. Briefings in bioinformatics. 2006, 7 (3): 243-55. doi:10.1093/bib/bbl022View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chuang JS, Roth D: Gene recognition based on DAG shortest paths. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2001, 17 (Suppl 1): 56-64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Managbanag JR, Witten TM, Bonchev D, Fox La, Tsuchiya M, Kennedy BK, Kaeberlein M: Shortest-path network analysis is a useful approach toward identifying genetic determinants of longevity. PloS one. 2008, 3 (11): 3802-doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003802View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Missiuro PV, Liu K, Zou L, Ross BC, Zhao G, Liu JS, Ge H: Information flow analysis of interactome networks. PLoS computational biology. 2009, 5 (4): 1000350-doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000350View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Przulj N, Wigle Da, Jurisica I: Functional topology in a network of protein interactions. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2004, 20 (3): 340-8. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg415View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sun J, Jia P, Fanous AH, van den Oord E, Chen X, Riley BP, Amdur RL, Kendler KS, Zhao Z: Schizophrenia gene networks and pathways and their applications for novel candidate gene selection. PloS one. 2010, 5 (6): 11351-doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011351View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stuart JM, Segal E, Koller D, Kim SK: A gene-coexpression network for global discovery of conserved genetic modules. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2003, 302 (5643): 249-55. doi:10.1126/science.1087447View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kendall MG, Smith BB: The Problem of $m$ Rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1939, 10 (3): 275-287. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732186View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kumari S, Nie J, Chen H-S, Ma H, Stewart R, Li X, Lu M-Z, Taylor WM, Wei H: Evaluation of gene association methods for coexpression network construction and biological knowledge discovery. PloS one. 2012, 7 (11): 50411-doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050411View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- White S, Smyth P: Algorithms for estimating relative importance in networks. Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - KDD '03. 2003, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 266-doi:10.1145/956755.956782View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hecker M, Goertsches RH, Engelmann R, Thiesen H-J, Guthke R: Integrative modeling of transcriptional regulation in response to antirheumatic therapy. BMC bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 262-doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-262View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dudoit S, Yang YH, Callow MJ, Speed TP: Statistical methods for identifying differentially expressed genes in replicated cDNA microarray experiments. Statistica sinica. 2002, 12 (3): 111-139.Google Scholar
- Agarwal S, Deane CM, Porter MA, Jones NS: Revisiting date and party hubs: Novel approaches to role assignment in protein interaction networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010, 6 (6): 1000817-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sinclair D, Webster M, Fullerton J, Weickert C: Glucocorticoid receptor mrna and protein isoform alterations in the orbitofrontal cortex in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2012, 12 (1): 84-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hashimoto R, Y Y, Ohi K: Variants of the rela gene are associated with schizophrenia and their startle responses. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011, 36 (9): 1921-1931.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kido M, Nakamura Y, Nemoto K, Takahashi T, Aleksic B, Furuichi A, Nakamura Y, Ikeda M, Noguchi K, Kaibuchi K, Iwata N, Ozaki N, Suzuki M: The polymorphism of ywhae, a gene encoding 14-3-3epsilon, and brain morphology in schizophrenia: A voxel-based morphometric study. PLoS ONE. 2014, 9 (8): 103571-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pandey G, Rizavi H, Tripathi M, Ren X: Region-specific dysregulation of glycogen synthase kinase-3β and β-catenin in the postmortem brains of subjects with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Bipolar Disord. 2014, Google Scholar
- Sinclair D, Fillman S, Webster M, Weickert C: Dysregulation of glucocorticoid receptor co-factors fkbp5, bag1 and ptges3 in prefrontal cortex in psychotic illness. Sci Rep. 2013, 3: 3539-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fan Y, Abrahamsen G, McGrath JJ, Mackay-Sim A: Altered cell cycle dynamics in schizophrenia. Biological psychiatry. 2012, 71 (2): 129-35. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.10.004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beaulieu J-M, Sotnikova TD, Marion S, Lefkowitz RJ, Gainetdinov RR, Caron MG: An Akt/beta-arrestin 2/PP2A signaling complex mediates dopaminergic neurotransmission and behavior. Cell. 2005, 122 (2): 261-273.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.