1. Define context(s)
reveal new biological insights
Primary goal of the model/tool/database
Differential network analysis has become an important approach in identifying driver genes in development and disease. However, most studies capture only local features of the underlying gene-regulatory network topology. These approaches are vulnerable to noise and other changes which mask driver-gene activity. Therefore, methods are urgently needed which can separate the impact of true regulatory elements from stochastic changes and downstream effects. We propose the differential network flow (DNF) method to identify key regulators of progression in development or disease. Given the network representation of consecutive biological states, DNF quantifies the essentiality of each node by differences in the distribution of network flow, which are capable of capturing comprehensive topological differences from local to global feature domains. DNF achieves more accurate driver-gene identification than other state-of-the-art methods when applied to four human datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas and three single-cell RNA-seq datasets of murine neural and hematopoietic differentiation. Furthermore, we predict key regulators of crosstalk between separate networks underlying both neuronal differentiation and the progression of neurodegenerative disease, among which App is predicted as a driver gene of neural stem cell differentiation. Our method is a new approach for quantifying the essentiality of genes across networks of different biological states.
Biological domain of the model
Identification of driver genes in development and disease from scRNA-seq data
Structure(s) of interest in the model
Driver genes in development and disease
Spatial scales included in the model
cellular to tissue
Time scales included in the model
seconds to weeks
2. Data for building and validating the model
Data for building the model |
Published? |
Private? |
How is credibility checked? |
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
in vitro (primary cells cell, lines, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
ex vivo (excised tissues) |
|
|
|
|
in vivo pre-clinical (lower-level organism or small animal) |
Yes |
No |
The model was built in an unsupervised way on unbiased single-cell RNA sequencing data and spatial data. |
Extensive |
in vivo pre-clinical (large animal) |
|
|
|
|
Human subjects/clinical |
Yes |
No |
The model was built in an unsupervised way on unbiased single-cell RNA sequencing data. |
Extensive |
Other: ________________________ |
|
|
|
|
Data for validating the model |
Published? |
Private? |
How is credibility checked? |
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
in vitro (primary cells cell, lines, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
ex vivo (excised tissues) |
|
|
|
|
in vivo pre-clinical (lower-level organism or small animal) |
Yes |
No |
By comparing to existing knowledge. |
Adequate |
in vivo pre-clinical (large animal) |
|
|
|
|
Human subjects/clinical |
Yes |
No |
By comparing to existing knowledge. |
Adequate |
Other: ________________________ |
|
|
|
|
3. Validate within context(s)
|
Who does it? |
When does it happen? |
How is it done? |
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Verification |
Students/postdocs/investigators |
Throughout the project |
The method is verified on simulation datasets. |
Extensive |
Validation |
Students/postdocs/investigators |
As the unsupervised model was established |
The identified driver genes from real data agree well with available knowledge. |
Extensive |
Uncertainty quantification |
|
|
|
|
Sensitivity analysis |
Students/postdocs/investigators |
As the unsupervised model was established |
By tuning key parameters and comparing to annotated data. |
Adequate |
Other:__________ |
|
|
|
|
Additional Comments |
|
|
|
|
4. Limitations
Disclaimer statement (explain key limitations) |
Who needs to know about this disclaimer? |
How is this disclaimer shared with that audience? |
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Technical noise of scRNA-seq data |
Scientific community who intends to apply this method to raw scRNA-seq data. |
In discussion of the paper. |
Adequate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Version control
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Extensive |
|
Naming Conventions? |
Repository? |
Code Review? |
individual modeler |
Yes |
N/A |
Peer |
within the lab |
Yes |
N/A |
Peer |
collaborators |
Yes |
N/A |
Peer |
6. Documentation
|
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Code commented? |
N/A |
Scope and intended use described? |
N/A |
User’s guide? |
N/A |
Developer’s guide? |
N/A |
7. Dissemination
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
N/A |
Target Audience(s): |
“Inner circle” |
Scientific community |
Public |
Simulations |
|
|
|
Models |
|
|
|
Software |
|
|
|
Results |
|
|
|
Implications of results |
|
|
|
8. Independent reviews
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Insufficient |
Reviewer(s) name & affiliation: |
|
When was review performed? |
|
How was review performed and outcomes of the review? |
|
9. Test competing implementations
Current Conformance Level / Target Conformance Level |
Adequate |
|
Yes or No (briefly summarize) |
Were competing implementations tested? |
Yes. The method has been compared to several other state-of-the-art methods for identifying driver genes. |
Did this lead to model refinement or improvement? |
No |