IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1000322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Directing Experimental Biology: A Case Study in Mitochondrial Biogenesis

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew A Hibbs
  • Chad L Myers
  • Curtis Huttenhower
  • David C Hess
  • Kai Li
  • Amy A Caudy
  • Olga G Troyanskaya

Abstract

Computational approaches have promised to organize collections of functional genomics data into testable predictions of gene and protein involvement in biological processes and pathways. However, few such predictions have been experimentally validated on a large scale, leaving many bioinformatic methods unproven and underutilized in the biology community. Further, it remains unclear what biological concerns should be taken into account when using computational methods to drive real-world experimental efforts. To investigate these concerns and to establish the utility of computational predictions of gene function, we experimentally tested hundreds of predictions generated from an ensemble of three complementary methods for the process of mitochondrial organization and biogenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The biological data with respect to the mitochondria are presented in a companion manuscript published in PLoS Genetics (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000407). Here we analyze and explore the results of this study that are broadly applicable for computationalists applying gene function prediction techniques, including a new experimental comparison with 48 genes representing the genomic background. Our study leads to several conclusions that are important to consider when driving laboratory investigations using computational prediction approaches. While most genes in yeast are already known to participate in at least one biological process, we confirm that genes with known functions can still be strong candidates for annotation of additional gene functions. We find that different analysis techniques and different underlying data can both greatly affect the types of functional predictions produced by computational methods. This diversity allows an ensemble of techniques to substantially broaden the biological scope and breadth of predictions. We also find that performing prediction and validation steps iteratively allows us to more completely characterize a biological area of interest. While this study focused on a specific functional area in yeast, many of these observations may be useful in the contexts of other processes and organisms.Author Summary: Genome sequencing has provided us with “parts lists” of genes for many organisms, but many of the biological roles these genes are still unknown. While a great deal of functional genomic data exists, providing information about these genes and their roles, the rate at which these data are leveraged into concrete biological knowledge lags far behind the rate of data generation. Many computational approaches have been developed to generate accurate predictions of gene functions, with the goal of bridging this divide. However, as no large-scale experimental efforts have been based on such approaches, their validity and utility remains unproven. We have performed a study that experimentally evaluates predictions from a combination of three computational function prediction approaches, focusing on mitochondrion-related processes in brewer's yeast as a model system. By using computational predictions to guide our laboratory investigation, we have greatly accelerated the rate at which proteins can be assigned to biological processes. Further, our results demonstrate that in order to achieve the best results, it is important for computational biologists to consider both the underlying data and the algorithmic foundations of the methods used to predict function. Lastly, we demonstrate that iterating through phases of prediction and validation has quickly and extensively expanded our knowledge of mitochondrial biology.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew A Hibbs & Chad L Myers & Curtis Huttenhower & David C Hess & Kai Li & Amy A Caudy & Olga G Troyanskaya, 2009. "Directing Experimental Biology: A Case Study in Mitochondrial Biogenesis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000322
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000322
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000322&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroaki Kitano, 2002. "Computational systems biology," Nature, Nature, vol. 420(6912), pages 206-210, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Casey S Greene & Olga G Troyanskaya, 2012. "Chapter 2: Data-Driven View of Disease Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-8, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Bandara & Johannes P Schlöder & Roland Eils & Hans Georg Bock & Tobias Meyer, 2009. "Optimal Experimental Design for Parameter Estimation of a Cell Signaling Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Mark Read & Paul S. Andrews & Jon Timmis & Vipin Kumar, 2011. "Techniques for grounding agent-based simulations in the real domain: a case study in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis," Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 67-86, May.
    3. Chandra, Yanto & Wilkinson, Ian F., 2017. "Firm internationalization from a network-centric complex-systems perspective," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 691-701.
    4. Jacobo Ayensa-Jiménez & Marina Pérez-Aliacar & Teodora Randelovic & José Antonio Sanz-Herrera & Mohamed H. Doweidar & Manuel Doblaré, 2020. "Analysis of the Parametric Correlation in Mathematical Modeling of In Vitro Glioblastoma Evolution Using Copulas," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Qing-Ju Jiao & Yan-Kai Zhang & Lu-Ning Li & Hong-Bin Shen, 2011. "BinTree Seeking: A Novel Approach to Mine Both Bi-Sparse and Cohesive Modules in Protein Interaction Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Tom C Freeman & Leon Goldovsky & Markus Brosch & Stijn van Dongen & Pierre Mazière & Russell J Grocock & Shiri Freilich & Janet Thornton & Anton J Enright, 2007. "Construction, Visualisation, and Clustering of Transcription Networks from Microarray Expression Data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-11, October.
    7. Yuksel Bayraktar & Esme Isik & Ibrahim Isik & Ayfer Ozyilmaz & Metin Toprak & Fatma Kahraman Guloglu & Serdar Aydin, 2022. "Analyzing of Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Biomedical and Socio-Economic Approach Using Molecular Communication, Artificial Neural Network, and Random Forest Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Mika Gustafsson & Michael Hörnquist, 2010. "Gene Expression Prediction by Soft Integration and the Elastic Net—Best Performance of the DREAM3 Gene Expression Challenge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-8, February.
    9. Diego Fernández Slezak & Cecilia Suárez & Guillermo A Cecchi & Guillermo Marshall & Gustavo Stolovitzky, 2010. "When the Optimal Is Not the Best: Parameter Estimation in Complex Biological Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-10, October.
    10. Alan A Cohen & Emmanuel Milot & Qing Li & Patrick Bergeron & Roxane Poirier & Francis Dusseault-Bélanger & Tamàs Fülöp & Maxime Leroux & Véronique Legault & E Jeffrey Metter & Linda P Fried & Luigi Fe, 2015. "Detection of a Novel, Integrative Aging Process Suggests Complex Physiological Integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Niki Vermeulen, 2018. "The choreography of a new research field: Aggregation, circulation and oscillation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(8), pages 1764-1784, November.
    12. Armaghan W Naik & Joshua D Kangas & Christopher J Langmead & Robert F Murphy, 2013. "Efficient Modeling and Active Learning Discovery of Biological Responses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    13. Joep P J Schmitz & Jeroen A L Jeneson & Joep W M van Oorschot & Jeanine J Prompers & Klaas Nicolay & Peter A J Hilbers & Natal A W van Riel, 2012. "Prediction of Muscle Energy States at Low Metabolic Rates Requires Feedback Control of Mitochondrial Respiratory Chain Activity by Inorganic Phosphate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, March.
    14. Marco S Nobile & Paolo Cazzaniga & Daniela Besozzi & Dario Pescini & Giancarlo Mauri, 2014. "cuTauLeaping: A GPU-Powered Tau-Leaping Stochastic Simulator for Massive Parallel Analyses of Biological Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Fabian Fröhlich & Barbara Kaltenbacher & Fabian J Theis & Jan Hasenauer, 2017. "Scalable Parameter Estimation for Genome-Scale Biochemical Reaction Networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Markus J. Buehler & Theodor Ackbarow, 2008. "Nanomechanical strength mechanisms of hierarchical biological materials and tissues," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 595-607.
    17. Luca Marchetti & Rosario Lombardo & Corrado Priami, 2017. "HSimulator: Hybrid Stochastic/Deterministic Simulation of Biochemical Reaction Networks," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-12, December.
    18. Ryan N Gutenkunst & Joshua J Waterfall & Fergal P Casey & Kevin S Brown & Christopher R Myers & James P Sethna, 2007. "Universally Sloppy Parameter Sensitivities in Systems Biology Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-8, October.
    19. Luca Cardelli & Rosa D Hernansaiz-Ballesteros & Neil Dalchau & Attila Csikász-Nagy, 2017. "Efficient Switches in Biology and Computer Science," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Yohei Murakami, 2014. "Bayesian Parameter Inference and Model Selection by Population Annealing in Systems Biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.