An Ensemble Approach for Inferring Semi-quantitative Regulatory Dynamics for the Differentiation of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells Using Prior Knowledge

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 736)

Abstract

The process of differentiation of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) is currently becoming the focus of many systems biologists not only due to mechanistic interest but also since it is expected to play an increasingly important role in regenerative medicine, in particular with the advert to induced pluripotent stem cells. These ESCs give rise to the formation of the three germ layers and therefore to the formation of all tissues and organs. Here, we present a computational method for inferring regulatory interactions between the genes involved in ESC differentiation based on time resolved microarray profiles. Fully quantitative methods are commonly unavailable on such large-scale data; on the other hand, purely qualitative methods may fail to capture some of the more detailed regulations. Our method combines the beneficial aspects of qualitative and quantitative (ODE-based) modeling approaches searching for quantitative interaction coefficients in a discrete and qualitative state space. We further optimize on an ensemble of networks to detect essential properties and compare networks with respect to robustness. Applied to a toy model our method is able to reconstruct the original network and outperforms an entire discrete boolean approach. In particular, we show that including prior knowledge leads to more accurate results. Applied to data from differentiating mouse ESCs reveals new regulatory interactions, in particular we confirm the activation of Foxh1 through Oct4, mediating Nodal signaling.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We kindly thank Dominik Wittmann and Sabine Hug for proofreading the manuscript and many helpful comments. This research was partially supported by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association within the Helmholtz Alliance on Systems Biology (project CoReNe) and by the European Union within the ERC grant LatentCauses (grant agreement number 259294).

References

  1. 1.
    Saez-Rodriguez J, Simeoni L, Lindquist JA, Hemenway R, Bommhardt U, Arndt B, Haus UU, Weismantel R, Gilles ED, Klamt S, Schraven B (2007) A logical model provides insights into t cell receptor signaling. PLoS Comput Biol 3:e163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busch H, Camacho-Trullio D, Rogon Z, Breuhahn K, Angel P, Eils R, Szabowski A (2008) Gene network dynamics controlling keratinocyte migration. Mol Syst Biol 4:199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu R, Markowetz F, Unwin RD, Leek JT, Airoldi EM, MacArthur BD, Lachmann A, Rozov R, Ma’ayan A, Boyer LA, Troyanskaya OG, Whetton AD, Lemischka IR (2009) Systems-level dynamic analyses of fate change in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature 462:358–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lutter D, Langmann T, Ugocsai P, Moehle C, Seibold E, Splettstoesser WD, Gruber P, Lang EW, Schmitz G (2009) Analyzing time-dependent microarray data using independent component analysis derived expression modes from human macrophages infected with F. tularensis var. holartica. J Biomed Inform 42:605–611Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glauche I, Herberg M, Roeder I (2010) Nanog variability and pluripotency regulation of embryonic stem cells – Insights from a mathematical model analysis. PLoS One 5:e11238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cara AD, Garg A, Micheli GD, Xenarios I, Mendoza L (2007) Dynamic simulation of regulatory networks using squad. BMC Bioinformatics 8:462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glass L, Kauffman S (1973) The logical analysis of continuous, non-linear biochemical control networks. J Theor Biol 39:103–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saez-Rodriguez J, Alexopoulos LG, Epperlein J, Samaga R, Lauffenburger DA, Klamt S, Sorger PK (2009) Discrete logic modelling as a means to link protein signalling networks with functional analysis of mammalian signal transduction. Mol Syst Biol 5:331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidich MI, Bornholdt S (2008) Boolean network model predicts cell cycle sequence of fission yeast. PLoS One 3:e1672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fauré A, Naldi A, Chaouiya C, Thieffry D (2006) Dynamical analysis of a generic boolean model for the control of the mammalian cell cycle. Bioinformatics 22:e124–e131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wittmann DM, Krumsiek J, Saez-Rodriguez J, Lauffenburger DA, Klamt S, Theis FJ (2009) Transforming boolean models to continuous models: methodology and application to t-cell receptor signaling. BMC Syst Biol 3:98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krumsiek J, Pölsterl S, Wittmann DM, Theis FJ (2010) Odefy–from discrete to continuous models. BMC Bioinformatics 11:233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bornholdt S (2008) Boolean network models of cellular regulation: prospects and limitations. J R Soc Interface 5 (Suppl 1):S85–S94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glass L (1975) Classification of biological networks by their qualitative dynamics. J Theor Biol 54:85–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casey R, de Jong H, Gouz JL (2006) Piecewise-linear models of genetic regulatory networks: equilibria and their stability. J Math Biol 52:27–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Jong H, Page M (2008) Search for steady states of piecewise-linear differential equation models of genetic regulatory networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 5:208–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tam PPL, Loebel DAF (2007) Gene function in mouse embryogenesis: get set for gastrulation. Nat Rev Genet 8:368–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Costa IG, Roepcke S, Hafemeister C, Schliep A (2008) Inferring differentiation pathways from gene expression. Bioinformatics 24:i156–i164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niwa H (2007) How is pluripotency determined and maintained? Development 134:635–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chickarmane V, Peterson C (2008) A computational model for understanding stem cell, trophectoderm and endoderm lineage determination. PLoS One 3:e3478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burtscher I, Lickert H (2009) Foxa2 regulates polarity and epithelialization in the endoderm germ layer of the mouse embryo. Development 136:1029–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tamplin OJ, Kinzel D, Cox BJ, Bell CE, Rossant J, Lickert H (2008) Microarray analysis of foxa2 mutant mouse embryos reveals novel gene expression and inductive roles for the gastrula organizer and its derivatives. BMC Genomics 9:511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Masui S, Nakatake Y, Toyooka Y, Shimosato D, Yagi R, Takahashi K, Okochi H, Okuda A, Matoba R, Sharov AA, Ko MSH, Niwa H (2007) Pluripotency governed by sox2 via regulation of oct3/4 expression in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Cell Biol 9:625–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chambers I, Tomlinson SR (2009) The transcriptional foundation of pluripotency. Development 136:2311–2322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sene KH, Porter CJ, Palidwor G, Perez-Iratxeta C, Muro EM, Campbell PA, Rudnicki MA, Andrade-Navarro MA (2007) Gene function in early mouse embryonic stem cell differentiation. BMC Genomics 8:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson CL, Miller CJ (2005) Simpleaffy: a bioconductor package for affymetrix quality control and data analysis. Bioinformatics 21:3683–3685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aij T, Lhdesmki H (2009) Learning gene regulatory networks from gene expression measurements using non-parametric molecular kinetics. Bioinformatics 25:2937–2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greenfield A, Madar A, Ostrer H, Bonneau R (2010) Dream4: Combining genetic and dynamic information to identify biological networks and dynamical models. PLoS One 5:e13397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tam PPL, Loebel DAF, Tanaka SS (2006) Building the mouse gastrula: signals, asymmetry and lineages. Curr Opin Genet Dev 16:419–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfister S, Steiner KA, Tam PPL (2007) Gene expression pattern and progression of embryogenesis in the immediate post-implantation period of mouse development. Gene Expr Patterns 7:558–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yamamoto M, Meno C, Sakai Y, Shiratori H, Mochida K, Ikawa Y, Saijoh Y, Hamada H (2001) The transcription factor foxh1 (fast) mediates nodal signaling during anterior–posterior patterning and node formation in the mouse. Genes Dev 15:1242–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loh YH, Wu Q, Chew JL, Vega VB, Zhang W, Chen X, Bourque G, George J, Leong B, Liu J, Wong KY, Sung KW, Lee CWH, Zhao XD, Chiu KP, Lipovich L, Kuznetsov VA, Robson P, Stanton LW, Wei CL, Ruan Y, Lim B, Ng HH (2006) The oct4 and nanog transcription network regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 38:431–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kitano H (2004) Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 5:826–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leclerc RD (2008) Survival of the sparsest: robust gene networks are parsimonious. Mol Syst Biol 4:213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, CMB, Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations