2021
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab099
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inference of gene regulatory networks using pseudo-time series data

Abstract: Motivation Inferring gene regulatory networks (GRNs) from high-throughput data is an important and challenging problem in systems biology. Although numerous GRN methods have been developed, most have focused on the verification of the specific data set. However, it is difficult to establish directed topological networks that are both suitable for time-series and non-time-series datasets due to the complexity and diversity of biological networks. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Building upon several deep learning-based methods 18, 22 , we have demonstrated that combining fully-supervised deep learning with joint-probability matrices of pseudotime-lagged single-cell trajectories can overcome certain limitations of current Granger causality-based methods of gene-regulatory inference 9, 12 , such as their inability to infer cyclic regulatory motifs. Moreover, although our convolutional neural network DELAY remains sensitive to the ordering of single cells in pseudotime, the network can accurately infer direct gene-regulatory interactions from both timecourse and snapshot datasets, unlike many supervised methods that rely strongly on the number of available time-course samples 15, 16 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Building upon several deep learning-based methods 18, 22 , we have demonstrated that combining fully-supervised deep learning with joint-probability matrices of pseudotime-lagged single-cell trajectories can overcome certain limitations of current Granger causality-based methods of gene-regulatory inference 9, 12 , such as their inability to infer cyclic regulatory motifs. Moreover, although our convolutional neural network DELAY remains sensitive to the ordering of single cells in pseudotime, the network can accurately infer direct gene-regulatory interactions from both timecourse and snapshot datasets, unlike many supervised methods that rely strongly on the number of available time-course samples 15, 16 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several methods for gene-regulatory inference rely on pseudotime in Granger causality tests, which try to determine whether new time series can add predictive power to inferred models of gene regulation 8, 9 . However, Granger causality-based methods can be error-prone when genes display nonlinear or cyclic interactions, or when the sampling rate is uneven or too low 912 . Because pseudotime trajectories exhibit these problems, Granger causality-based methods often underperform model-free approaches that exploit pure statistical dependencies in gene-expression data 9, 13, 14 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the development of DNB methods, there have been many improvements in expanding the application of DNBs to other research. For example, Zhang proposed a new method, GNIPLR, to infer gene regulatory networks (GRNs) [21] . Alcudia developed a metaheuristic multiobjective optimization method for DNB identification using two steps [22] .…”
Section: Cancer Biomarkers Cancer Tipping Points and Dynamic Network ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In consideration of the cell dynamics over time, time-course scRNA-seq gene expression data is intrinsically much more informative and impressive than the static scRNA-seq data, particularly for the inference of putative regulatory signals. However, most existing methods for GRN reconstruction were designed for static scRNA-seq data [5], [7], [8] or required pseudotime ordered cells [9], [23]. The classical statistical Lu Zhang is the corresponding author.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%