DOCSLIB.ORG

Deep Learning for Inferring Gene Relationships from Single-Cell Expression Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deep Learning for Inferring Gene Relationships from Single-Cell Expression Data Deep learning for inferring gene relationships from single-cell expression data Ye Yuana and Ziv Bar-Josepha,b,1 aMachine Learning Department, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; and bComputational Biology Department, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Edited by Nancy R. Zhang, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Peter J. Bickel November 12, 2019 (received for review July 7, 2019) Several methods were developed to mine gene–gene relationships The network is trained with positive and negative examples for from expression data. Examples include correlation and mutual the specific domain of interest (e.g., known targets of a tran- information methods for coexpression analysis, clustering and un- scription factor [TF], known pathways for a specific biological directed graphical models for functional assignments, and directed process, known disease genes, etc.), and the output can be either graphical models for pathway reconstruction. Using an encoding binary or multinomial. for gene expression data, followed by deep neural networks anal- We applied CNNC using a large cohort of single-cell (SC) ysis, we present a framework that can successfully address all of expression data and tested it on several inference tasks. We show these diverse tasks. We show that our method, convolutional neu- that CNNC outperforms prior methods for inferring interactions ral network for coexpression (CNNC), improves upon prior methods (including TF–gene and protein–protein interactions), causality in- in tasks ranging from predicting transcription factor targets to iden- ference, and functional assignments (including biological processes tifying disease-related genes to causality inference. CNNC’s encoding and diseases). provides insights about some of the decisions it makes and their biological basis. CNNC is flexible and can easily be extended to inte- Results grate additional types of genomics data, leading to further improve- We developed CNNC, a general computational framework for ments in its performance. supervised gene relationship inference (Fig. 1). CNNC is based on a CNN, which is used to analyze summarized co-occurrence histo- SYSTEMS BIOLOGY gene interactions | deep learning | causality inference grams from pairs of genes in single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA- seq) data. Given a relatively small labeled set of positive pairs (with everal computational methods have been developed to infer either negative or random pairs serving as negative), CNNC learns relationships between genes based on gene expression data. S to discriminate between interacting, causal pairs, negative pairs, or These range from methods for inferring coexpression relation- any other gene relationship types that can be defined. ships between pairs of genes (1) to methods for inferring a bio- logical or disease process for a gene based on other genes [either Learning a CNNC Model. CNNC can be trained with any expression using clustering or guilt by association (2)] to causality inferences dataset, although as with other neural network applications, the COMPUTER SCIENCES (3, 4) and pathway reconstruction methods (5). To date, each of more data, the better its performance. Given expression data, we these tasks was handled by a different computational framework. For example, gene coexpression analysis is usually performed using Pearson correlation (PC) or mutual information (MI) (6). Significance Functional assignment of genes is often performed using clus- tering (7) or undirected graphical models including Markov Accurate inference of gene interactions and causality is required random fields (8), while pathway reconstruction is often based for pathway reconstruction, which remains a major goal for on directed probabilistic graphical models (4). These methods many studies. Here, we take advantage of 2 recent technological also serve as an initial step in some of the most widely used tools developments, single-cell RNA sequencing and deep learning to for the analysis of genomics data including network inference propose an encoding scheme for gene expression data. We use and reconstruction approaches (3, 9, 10), methods for classifi- this encoding in a supervised framework to perform several dif- cation based on genes expression (11) and many more. ferent types of analysis using minimal assumptions. Our method, While successful and widely used, these methods also suffer convolutional neural network for coexpression (CNNC), first from serious drawbacks. First, most of these methods are unsu- transforms expression data lacking locality to an image-like ob- pervised. Given the large number of genes that are profiled, and ject on which convolutional neural networks (CNNs) work very well. We then utilize CNNs for learning relationships between the often relatively small (at least in comparison) number of genes, causality inferences, functional assignments, and disease samples, several genes that are determined to be coexpressed or gene predictions. For all of these tasks, CNNC significantly out- cofunctional may only reflect chance or noise in the data (12). In performs all prior task-specific methods. addition, most of the widely used methods are symmetric, which means that each pair has only one relationship value. While this Author contributions: Y.Y. and Z.B.-J. designed research; Y.Y. and Z.B.-J. performed re- is advantageous for some applications (e.g., clustering), it may be search; Y.Y. analyzed data; and Y.Y. and Z.B.-J. wrote the paper. problematic for methods that aim at inferring causality (e.g., The authors declare no competing interest. network reconstruction tasks). This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. N.R.Z. is a guest editor invited by the To address these issues, we developed a method, convolutional Editorial Board. neural network for coexpression (CNNC), which provides a su- Published under the PNAS license. pervised way (that can be tailored to the condition/question of Data deposition: The software in this paper has been deposited in GitHub, https://github. interest) to perform gene relationship inference. CNNC utilizes a com/xiaoyeye/CNNC. representation of the input data specifically suitable for deep 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected]. learning. It represents each pair of genes as an image (histogram) This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/ and uses convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to infer rela- doi:10.1073/pnas.1911536116/-/DCSupplemental. tionships between different expression levels encoded in the image. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911536116 PNAS Latest Articles | 1of8 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 cell-type–specific protein–DNA interactions (17). We thus evaluated CNNC’s performance using cell-type-specific scRNA-seq datasets (for mouse embryonic stem cells [mESCs], bone marrow- derived macrophages, and dendritic cells; Methods) and ChIP-seq data from Gene Transcription Regulation Database (GTRD) (18). We extracted data from GTRD for 38 TFs for which ChIP-seq experiments were performed in mESCs, 13 TFs studied in macrophages, and 16 TFs for dendritic cells. To determine tar- gets for each TF using the ChIP-seq data, we followed prior work (19, 20) and defined a promotor region as 10 kb upstream to 1 kb downstream from the transcription start site (TSS) for each gene. If a TF a has at least one detected peak signal in or overlapping the promotor region of gene b, we say that TF a regulates gene b. For this prediction task, we compared CNNC with several pop- ular methods for gene–gene coexpression analysis: PC and MI, which are the 2 most popular coexpression analysis methods; Genie3 (9), which was the best performer in the dialogue for re- Fig. 1. CNNC input, output, and architecture. CNNC aims to infer gene– gene relationships using single-cell expression data. For each gene pair, verse engineering assessments and methods (DREAM4) challenge scRNA-seq expression levels are transformed into 32 × 32 normalized em- (21), in silico networks construction challenge; count statistics (CS) pirical probability function (NEPDF) matrices. The NEPDF serves as an input (22), which relies on local information based on gene expression to a convolutional neural network (CNN). The intermediate layer of the CNN ranks in large heterogeneous samples; conditional-density resampled can be further concatenated with input vectors representing DNase-seq and estimate of mutual information (DREMI) (23); and a fully con- PWM data. The output layer can either have a single, 3, or more values, nected deep neural network (DNN), which also uses our NEPDF depending on the application. For example, for causality inference the as input. Since most of the prior methods used for comparison are output layer contains 3 probability nodes where p0 represents the proba- symmetric, we focused here on the 2 labels setting (interacting or bility that genes a and b are not interacting, p1 encodes the case that gene a not). We applied 3-fold cross-validation to all datasets. Each fold regulates gene b, and p2 is the probability that gene b regulates gene a. contains several TFs, although the test is performed separately for each TF (Methods). first generate a normalized empirical probability distribution Fig. 2 presents the results of these comparisons. As can be seen, function (NEPDF) for each gene pair (genes a and b) (Fig. 1). CNNC and DNN outperform all
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gene Prediction and Genome Annotation
    A Crash Course in Gene and Genome Annotation Lieven Sterck, Bioinformatics & Systems Biology VIB-UGent [email protected] ProCoGen Dissemination Workshop, Riga, 5 nov 2013 “Conifer sequencing: basic concepts in conifer genomics” “This Project is financially supported by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme” Genome annotation: finding the biological relevant features on a raw genomic sequence (in a high throughput manner) ProCoGen Dissemination Workshop, Riga, 5 nov 2013 Thx to: BSB - annotation team • Lieven Sterck (Ectocarpus, higher plants, conifers, … ) • Yao-cheng Lin (Fungi, conifers, …) • Stephane Rombauts (green alga, mites, …) • Bram Verhelst (green algae) • Pierre Rouzé • Yves Van de Peer ProCoGen Dissemination Workshop, Riga, 5 nov 2013 Annotation experience • Plant genomes : A.thaliana & relatives (e.g. A.lyrata), Poplar, Physcomitrella patens, Medicago, Tomato, Vitis, Apple, Eucalyptus, Zostera, Spruce, Oak, Orchids … • Fungal genomes: Laccaria bicolor, Melampsora laricis- populina, Heterobasidion, other basidiomycetes, Glomus intraradices, Pichia pastoris, Geotrichum Candidum, Candida ... • Algal genomes: Ostreococcus spp, Micromonas, Bathycoccus, Phaeodactylum (and other diatoms), E.hux, Ectocarpus, Amoebophrya … • Animal genomes: Tetranychus urticae, Brevipalpus spp (mites), ... ProCoGen Dissemination Workshop, Riga, 5 nov 2013 Why genome annotation? • Raw sequence data is not useful for most biologists • To be meaningful to them it has to be converted into biological significant knowledge
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Structure Prediction
    Gene finding Lorenzo Cerutti Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics EMBNet course, September 2002 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Introduction Gene finding is about detecting coding regions and infer gene structure Gene finding is difficult DNA sequence signals have low information content (degenerated and highly unspe- • cific) It is difficult to discriminate real signals • Sequencing errors • Prokaryotes High gene density and simple gene structure • Short genes have little information • Overlapping genes • Eukaryotes Low gene density and complex gene structure • Alternative splicing • Pseudo-genes • 1 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Gene finding strategies Homology method Gene structure can be deduced by homology • Requires a not too distant homologous sequence • Ab initio method Requires two types of information • . compositional information . signal information 2 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Gene finding: Homology method 3 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Homology method Principles of the homology method. Coding regions evolve slower than non-coding regions, i.e. local sequence similarity • can be used as a gene finder. Homologous sequences reflect a common evolutionary origin and possibly a common • gene structure, i.e. gene structure can be solved by homology (mRNAs, ESTs, proteins, domains). Standard homology search methods can be used (BLAST, Smith-Waterman, ...). • Include ”gene syntax” information (start/stop codons, ...). • Homology methods are also useful to confirm predictions inferred by other methods 4 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Homology method: a simple view Gene of unknown structure Homology with a gene of known structure Exon 1 Exon 2 Exon 3 Find DNA signals ATG GT {TAA,TGA,TAG} AG 5 Gene finding EMBNet 2002 Procrustes Procrustes is a software to predict gene structure from homology found in pro- teins (Gelfand et al., 1996) Principle of the algorithm • .
    [Show full text]
  • A Curated Benchmark of Enhancer-Gene Interactions for Evaluating Enhancer-Target Gene Prediction Methods
    University of Massachusetts Medical School eScholarship@UMMS Open Access Articles Open Access Publications by UMMS Authors 2020-01-22 A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods Jill E. Moore University of Massachusetts Medical School Et al. Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs Part of the Bioinformatics Commons, Computational Biology Commons, Genetic Phenomena Commons, and the Genomics Commons Repository Citation Moore JE, Pratt HE, Purcaro MJ, Weng Z. (2020). A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods. Open Access Articles. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13059-019-1924-8. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs/4118 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Articles by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moore et al. Genome Biology (2020) 21:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1924-8 RESEARCH Open Access A curated benchmark of enhancer-gene interactions for evaluating enhancer-target gene prediction methods Jill E. Moore, Henry E. Pratt, Michael J. Purcaro and Zhiping Weng* Abstract Background: Many genome-wide collections of candidate cis-regulatory elements (cCREs) have been defined using genomic and epigenomic data, but it remains a major challenge to connect these elements to their target genes. Results: To facilitate the development of computational methods for predicting target genes, we develop a Benchmark of candidate Enhancer-Gene Interactions (BENGI) by integrating the recently developed Registry of cCREs with experimentally derived genomic interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is a Lot of Research on Gene Prediction Methods
    LBNL #58992 Fungal Genomic Annotation Igor V. Grigoriev1, Diego A. Martinez2 and Asaf A. Salamov1 1US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 ([email protected], [email protected]); 2Los Alamos National Laboratory Joint Genome Institute, P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 ([email protected]). Sequencing technology in the last decade has advanced at an incredible pace. Currently there are hundreds of microbial genomes available with more still to come. Automated genome annotation aims to analyze this amount of sequence data in a high-throughput fashion and help researches to understand the biology of these organisms. Manual curation of automatically annotated genomes validates the predictions and set up 'gold' standards for improving the methodologies used. Here we review the methods and tools used for annotation of fungal genomes in different genome sequencing centers. 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years the power of DNA sequencing has dramatically increased, with dedicated centers running 24 hours a day 7 days a week able to produce as much as 2 gigabases of raw sequence or more a month. The researchers who work on a variety of fungi are fortunate, as most fungal genomes are under 50 megabases and produce high- quality draft assembly almost as easily as bacteria. This feature of fungal genomes is a key reason that the first sequenced eukaryotic genome was of the ascomycete Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Goffeau et al. 1996). As of the submission of this chapter, one can obtain draft sequences of more than 100 fungal genomes (Table 1) and the list is growing. While some are species of the same genus (e.g., Aspergillus has three members and more coming), there still remains a height of data that could confuse and bury a researcher for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Prediction Using Deep Learning
    FACULDADE DE ENGENHARIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO Gene prediction using Deep Learning Pedro Vieira Lamares Martins Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia Informática e Computação Supervisor: Rui Camacho (FEUP) Second Supervisor: Nuno Fonseca (EBI-Cambridge, UK) July 22, 2018 Gene prediction using Deep Learning Pedro Vieira Lamares Martins Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia Informática e Computação Approved in oral examination by the committee: Chair: Doctor Jorge Alves da Silva External Examiner: Doctor Carlos Manuel Abreu Gomes Ferreira Supervisor: Doctor Rui Carlos Camacho de Sousa Ferreira da Silva July 22, 2018 Abstract Every living being has in their cells complex molecules called Deoxyribonucleic Acid (or DNA) which are responsible for all their biological features. This DNA molecule is condensed into larger structures called chromosomes, which all together compose the individual’s genome. Genes are size varying DNA sequences which contain a code that are often used to synthesize proteins. Proteins are very large molecules which have a multitude of purposes within the individual’s body. Only a very small portion of the DNA has gene sequences. There is no accurate number on the total number of genes that exist in the human genome, but current estimations place that number between 20000 and 25000. Ever since the entire human genome has been sequenced, there has been an effort to consistently try to identify the gene sequences. The number was initially thought to be much higher, but it has since been furthered down following improvements in gene finding techniques. Computational prediction of genes is among these improvements, and is nowadays an area of deep interest in bioinformatics as new tools focused on the theme are developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions and Essential Genes Through Data Integration
    Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions and Essential Genes Through Data Integration by Max Kotlyar A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Department of Medical Biophysics University of Toronto Copyright °c 2011 by Max Kotlyar Abstract Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions and Essential Genes Through Data Integration Max Kotlyar Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Department of Medical Biophysics University of Toronto 2011 The currently known network of human protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is pro- viding new insights into diseases and helping to identify potential therapies. However, according to several estimates, the known interaction network may represent only 10% of the entire interactome – indicating that more comprehensive knowledge of the inter- actome could have a major impact on understanding and treating diseases. The primary aim of this thesis was to develop computational methods to provide increased coverage of the interactome. A secondary aim was to gain a better understanding of the link between networks and phenotype, by analyzing essential mouse genes. Two algorithms were developed to predict PPIs and provide increased coverage of the interactome: F pClass and mixed co-expression. F pClass differs from previous PPI prediction methods in two key ways: it integrates both positive and negative evidence for protein interactions, and it identifies synergies between predictive features. Through these approaches F pClass provides interaction networks with significantly improved reli- ability and interactome coverage. Compared to previous predicted human PPI networks, FpClass provides a network with over 10 times more interactions, about 2 times more pro- teins and a lower false discovery rate.
    [Show full text]
  • "An Overview of Gene Identification: Approaches, Strategies, and Considerations"
    An Overview of Gene Identification: UNIT 4.1 Approaches, Strategies, and Considerations Modern biology has officially ushered in a new era with the completion of the sequencing of the human genome in April 2003. While often erroneously called the “post-genome” era, this milestone truly marks the beginning of the “genome era,” a time in which the availability of sequence data for many genomes will have a significant effect on how science is performed in the 21st century. While complete human sequence data is now available at an overall accuracy of 99.99%, the mere availability of all of these As, Cs, Ts, and Gs still does not answer some of the basic questions regarding the human genome—how many genes actually comprise the genome, how many of these genes code for multiple gene products, and where those genes actually lie along the complement of human chromosomes. Current estimates, based on preliminary analyses of the draft sequence, place the number of human genes at ∼30,000 (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001). This number is in stark contrast to previously-suggested estimates, which had ranged as high as 140,000. A number that is in the 30,000 range brings into question the one-gene, one-protein hypothesis, underscoring the importance of processes such as alternative splicing in the generation of multiple gene products from a single gene. Finding all of the genes and the positions of those genes within the human genome sequence—and in other model organism genome sequences as well—requires the devel- opment and application of robust computational methods, some of which are listed in Table 4.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Benchmark Study of Ab Initio Gene Prediction Methods in Diverse Eukaryotic Organisms
    A benchmark study of ab initio gene prediction methods in diverse eukaryotic organisms Nicolas Scalzitti Laboratoire ICube Anne Jeannin-Girardon Laboratoire ICube https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-904X Pierre Collet Laboratoire ICube Olivier Poch Laboratoire ICube Julie Dawn Thompson ( [email protected] ) Laboratoire ICube https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4893-3478 Research article Keywords: genome annotation, gene prediction, protein prediction, benchmark study. Posted Date: March 3rd, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.19444/v2 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Version of Record: A version of this preprint was published on April 9th, 2020. See the published version at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6707-9. 1 A benchmark study of ab initio gene prediction 2 methods in diverse eukaryotic organisms 3 Nicolas Scalzitti1, Anne Jeannin-Girardon1, Pierre Collet1, Olivier Poch1, Julie D. 4 Thompson1* 5 6 1 Department of Computer Science, ICube, CNRS, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France 7 *Corresponding author: 8 Email: [email protected] 9 10 Abstract 11 Background: The draft genome assemblies produced by new sequencing technologies 12 present important challenges for automatic gene prediction pipelines, leading to less accurate 13 gene models. New benchmark methods are needed to evaluate the accuracy of gene prediction 14 methods in the face of incomplete genome assemblies, low genome coverage and quality, 15 complex gene structures, or a lack of suitable sequences for evidence-based annotations. 16 Results: We describe the construction of a new benchmark, called G3PO (benchmark for 17 Gene and Protein Prediction PrOgrams), designed to represent many of the typical challenges 18 faced by current genome annotation projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinformatics: a Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins, Second Edition Andreas D
    BIOINFORMATICS A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins SECOND EDITION Andreas D. Baxevanis Genome Technology Branch National Human Genome Research Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland USA B. F. Francis Ouellette Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION New York • Chichester • Weinheim • Brisbane • Singapore • Toronto BIOINFORMATICS SECOND EDITION METHODS OF BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS Volume 43 BIOINFORMATICS A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins SECOND EDITION Andreas D. Baxevanis Genome Technology Branch National Human Genome Research Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland USA B. F. Francis Ouellette Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION New York • Chichester • Weinheim • Brisbane • Singapore • Toronto Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration. Copyright ᭧ 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including uploading, downloading, printing, decompiling, recording or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Gene Prediction: Principles and Challenges Srabanti Maji and Deepak Garg*
    Send Orders of Reprints at [email protected] Current Bioinformatics, 2013, 8, 000-000 1 Progress in Gene Prediction: Principles and Challenges Srabanti Maji and Deepak Garg* Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala-147004, India Abstract: Bioinformatics is a promising and innovative research field in 21st century. Automatic gene prediction has been an actively researched field of bioinformatics. Despite a high number of techniques specifically dedicated to bioinformatics problems as well as many successful applications, we are in the beginning of a process to massively integrate the aspects and experiences in the different core subjects such as biology, medicine, computer science, engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Presently, a large number of gene identification tools are based on computational intelligence approaches. Here, we have discussed the existing conventional as well as computational methods to identify gene(s) and various gene predictors are compared. The paper includes some drawbacks of the presently available methods and also, the probable guidelines for future directions are discussed. Keywords: Bioinformatics, gene identification, DNA, content sensor, splice site, dynamic programming, neural networks, SVM. 1. INTRODUCTION identification in eukaryotic organisms, their advantages as well as the limitations [14-16]. A large number of gene In the field of bioinformatics, gene identification from identification tools are available publicly in the Web site large DNA sequence is known to be a significant setback. http://www.nslij-genetics.org/gene/. A new algorithm for The human genome project was completed in April 2003, the gene identification, CONTRAST is also studied and reported exact number of genes encoded by the human genome is still [17].
    [Show full text]
  • PATTERNS of DIPEPTIDE USAGE for GENE PREDICTION a Thesis
    PATTERNS OF DIPEPTIDE USAGE FOR GENE PREDICTION A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Engineering By DAYANANDA SAGAR GANGADHARAIAH B.E., Visvesvaraya Technological University, 2005 2010 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES July 2, 2010 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Dayananda Sagar Gangadharaiah ENTITLED Patterns of Dipeptide usage for gene prediction BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science in Computer Engineering. Travis E. Doom, Ph.D. Thesis Director Thomas Sudkamp, Ph.D. Department Chair Committee on Final Examination Travis E. Doom, Ph.D. Michael L. Raymer, Ph.D. Sridhar Ramachandran, Ph.D. John A. Bantle, Ph.D. Interim Dean, School of Graduate Studies DEDICATED TO MOTHER SHARADAMBE- THE GODDESS OF KNOWLEDGE ABSTRACT Dayananda Sagar Gangadharaiah. M.S.C.E., Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Wright State University, 2010. Patterns of dipeptide usage for gene prediction. As the number of complete genomes that have been sequenced continues to grow rapidly, the identification of genes regions in DNA sequence data remains one of the most important open problems in bio-informatics. Improving the accuracy of such gene finding tools by a small percentage would affect accurate predictions of many genes of an organism (Zhu et al., 2010). This thesis presents a novel approach for identifying coding regions of a genome based on dipeptide usage. The patterns in dipeptide usage are used to discriminate between coding and non-coding DNA regions. Two sample T-tests are used as tests of significance to determine the dipeptides that show significant difference in their occurrences in coding and non-coding regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinformatics Is a New Discipline That Addresses the Need to Manage and Interpret the Data That in the Past Decade Was Massively Generated by Genomic Research
    SABU M. THAMPI Assistant Professor Dept. of CSE LBS College of Engineering Kasaragod, Kerala-671542 [email protected] Introduction Bioinformatics is a new discipline that addresses the need to manage and interpret the data that in the past decade was massively generated by genomic research. This discipline represents the convergence of genomics, biotechnology and information technology, and encompasses analysis and interpretation of data, modeling of biological phenomena, and development of algorithms and statistics. Bioinformatics is by nature a cross-disciplinary field that began in the 1960s with the efforts of Margaret O. Dayhoff, Walter M. Fitch, Russell F. Doolittle and others and has matured into a fully developed discipline. However, bioinformatics is wide-encompassing and is therefore difficult to define. For many, including myself, it is still a nebulous term that encompasses molecular evolution, biological modeling, biophysics, and systems biology. For others, it is plainly computational science applied to a biological system. Bioinformatics is also a thriving field that is currently in the forefront of science and technology. Our society is investing heavily in the acquisition, transfer and exploitation of data and bioinformatics is at the center stage of activities that focus on the living world. It is currently a hot commodity, and students in bioinformatics will benefit from employment demand in government, the private sector, and academia. With the advent of computers, humans have become ‘data gatherers’, measuring every aspect of our life with inferences derived from these activities. In this new culture, everything can and will become data (from internet traffic and consumer taste to the mapping of galaxies or human behavior).
    [Show full text]