A simple knowledge-based mining method for exploring hidden key molecules in a human biomolecular network
© Tsuji et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 8 February 2012
Accepted: 25 July 2012
Published: 15 September 2012
In the functional genomics analysis domain, various methodologies are available for interpreting the results produced by high-throughput biological experiments. These methods commonly use a list of genes as an analysis input, and most of them produce a more complicated list of genes or pathways as the results of the analysis. Although there are several network-based methods, which detect key nodes in the network, the results tend to include well-studied, major hub genes.
To mine the molecules that have biological meaning but to fewer degrees than major hubs, we propose, in this study, a new network-based method for selecting these hidden key molecules based on virtual information flows circulating among the input list of genes. The human biomolecular network was constructed from the Pathway Commons database, and a calculation method based on betweenness centrality was newly developed. We validated the method with the ErbB pathway and applied it to practical cancer research data. We were able to confirm that the output genes, despite having fewer edges than major hubs, have biological meanings that were able to be invoked by the input list of genes.
The developed method, named NetHiKe (Network-based Hidden Key molecule miner), was able to detect potential key molecules by utilizing the human biomolecular network as a knowledge base. Thus, it is hoped that this method will enhance the progress of biological data analysis in the whole-genome research era.
KeywordsKnowledge-based analysis Network data mining Omics data analysis Cancer research
The emergence of next-generation sequencing technology and sophisticated microarray technology has enhanced the diversity of high-throughput biological experiments. In addition to gene expression profiling, epigenetic data, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, and mutation analysis in cancer have been studied comprehensively in a genome-wide manner. It is absolutely indispensable to use biological knowledge-based analysis methods to translate the results of these experiments into a better understanding of the underlying phenomena and to plan the next stages of research.
Biological knowledge, such as pathways or gene sets, is compiled in various databases. In these databases, biological knowledge is represented as a precompiled, divided set of genes, such as the “P53 signaling pathway” or “apoptotic signaling pathway”. These pathways are utilized by various knowledge-based analysis methods. Over-representation analysis (ORA) is a widely used method for mapping a list of genes onto these pathways automatically, and this technique can determine the pathways or functional gene sets that are enriched in a given list of genes obtained experimentally. ORA is frequently implemented as a web application, such as the NCI-Nature Pathway Interaction Database[1, 2] and the DAVID bioinformatics resources, that receive an input list of genes and calculate the p-values based on the frequency of the appearance of the input genes in each precompiled gene set. However, using the ORA methodology, the input list of genes is simply characterized with respect to the already-known pathways. Thus, researchers can rarely discover something new related to their input.
Another type of knowledge-based analysis is the network-based analysis method, which uses an interaction network of biomolecules as the knowledge. In this type of network, the biomolecules (proteins or genes) correspond to the nodes, and the edges indicate the relationships between the molecules (e.g., “protein A induces protein B” or “protein B phosphorylates protein C”). The assembled network is often called a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network or a biomolecular network, and several methodologies are available for analyzing experimental results using this network-based biological knowledge[4–6]. Many network-based analysis methods extract modules, which are sets of tightly connected nodes consisting of the input genes, and it is strongly expected that the genes in a module achieve a biological function in a coordinated manner. In addition, these modules sometimes include nodes that were not present in the input list. Thus, the network-based analysis methods partially overcome the disadvantages of ORA, in terms of the limitation to the predefined pathways or gene sets. However, these module-centric methods restrict the results of the analysis to a certain area of each module, even though the input genes are spread over the whole biomolecular network. Furthermore, when the modules of the analysis results become larger or more complex, it is almost impossible to understand their biological meanings.
Consequently, it would be beneficial to identify the nodes in the network as the key molecules that are relevant to the input list of genes. One of the most prominent characteristics of a node in a network is its degree, or number of neighbors. However, the degree contains information only about its neighbors, and in a similar way, other network measures, such as the clustering coefficient and assortativity, merely reflect the situations of their neighbors. In contrast, certain node centralities can determine the importance of each node in a network by taking into consideration the topology of the entire network. Although there are various types of centralities, such as degree centrality, closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, betweenness centrality and others, it is known that almost all of the centralities correlate with the degree of the node. Partially because the role of hub nodes in biomolecular networks still remains an intensive research target[9–11], the methods based on these centralities[12–14] tend to produce analysis results that are biased toward major hub nodes.
In this study, we present a new network-based method for identifying the hidden key molecules, a description that indicates that the molecules are biologically relevant to the input but do not have as many neighbors as the major hub nodes have. We have developed a centrality measure derived from betweenness centrality[15, 16], named node-limited betweenness centrality (nlBC). First, we validated the method using a well-known pathway, the ErbB (EGFR) signaling pathway. Next, we applied it to a practical cancer mutation dataset and explored the availability of our method.
Results and discussion
Verification of the Method
The results of the ErbB pathway analysis
To confirm the biological meanings of the results, we analyzed the genes in Table1 using the Pathway Interaction Database, which is one of the typical over-representation analysis methods (see “Methods” for details). As shown in Additional file2A (the link to NetHiKe), we obtained “E2F transcription factor network” as the most significant pathway, which is one of the downstream effects of an ErbB pathway stimulus.
The relationship between nlBC and P-values
To illustrate the properties of the nlBC and its p-values, we constructed individuals scatter plots for the nlBC, degree and p-value for the genes listed in Table1 (Additional files3A to3C). The nlBC values modestly correlate with degree (Additional file3A), whereas the p-value has almost no relationship with degree or nlBC (Additional files3B and3C). To understand the behavior of nlBC and its p-value and to determine the robustness of nlBC, we constructed a boxplot to visualize the nlBC values for the genes in Table1 (Additional file3D and3E). In the plots, the boxes of Additional file3D show the nlBCs that were generated using randomly selected genes for calculating simulated p-values, and the vertical spread of the boxes are indicative of the variation of the nlBC in response to the various input list of genes. The boxes of Additional file3E were generated by a leave-one-out method using the ErbB input genes, and the boxes are indicative of the robustness of the nlBC for certain input genes. The nlBC values vary in the different input list and their ranges also differ from each other. It seems that the ranges depend on the degree of each gene. However, the nlBC values of a certain semantic group of genes, such as those in the ErbB pathway, are significantly different from their randomly generated background distributions. Furthermore, the values are robust. Thus, to identify these alterations in the nlBC using NetHiKe, we validated the importance of the genes using simulated p-values instead of the nlBC values themselves.
Comparison with the Hubba results
When drawing the boxplots for the degrees of the genes (Figure3B), the degree distribution of the NetHiKe results was much smaller than that of the Hubba results excluding DMNC, one of the algorithms of Hubba. For example, EGFR (ERBB1), ERBB2, ERBB3, and ERBB4, which are four membrane receptors of the ErbB pathway, have 129, 33, 13, and 19 neighbors, respectively, in the background knowledge-base network. EGFR is considered to be one of the major hubs in this network, and Hubba (DMNC), whose degree distribution was as small as that of NetHiKe, failed to detect EGFR. In contrast, only the NetHiKe result has all four of these receptors in the top 30 gene list. Recently, ERBB2 and ERBB3, which have fewer degrees than EGFR, have been considered to play key roles in cancer tissue[17, 18]. These results suggest that NetHiKe can detect the hidden key molecules based on the context in which an input list of genes is given.
When the weight value of NRG2 was increased to 20.0, the results included more ERBB4-related genes (the result table is shown in Additional file5). To confirm this finding, we again examined the results using the Pathway Interaction Database. As shown in Additional file2H, “ERBB4 signaling events” was the second most important pathway because the increased weight of NRG2, the ligand of ERBB4, appropriately enhances the importance of ERBB4-related pathways. Taking these results together, if appropriate weights are given to NetHiKe, this algorithm can detect the nodes that have biological meaning but do not have many edges with statistical significance, such as p<0. 01.
Analysis of practical cancer mutation data
The results of GBM mutation data
Included in the input
As shown in Table2, the NetHiKe results do not include several famous key players in glioblastoma biology, such as EGFR, SRC and TP53. However, the nodes with fewer edges than those above that are included also have implications in glioblastoma biology. PTK2 (also known as FAK: focal-adhesion kinase), which is the top-ranked gene in Table2, is a non-receptor tyrosine kinase protein that serves as a major mediator of cell migration, and the suppression of PTK2 phosphorylation inhibits glioma cell migration. PTK2 is also gaining attention as a drug target in cancer therapy; for example, a kinase inhibitor of PTK2 has been developed in ovarian cancer. Clinical studies on pancreatic cancer and neuroblastoma, which is the most common childhood brain cancer, are also under way. PXN (also known as Paxillin), which is one of the hidden key molecules (Table2), is known to be a downstream target of PTK2. Additionally, the PTK2(FAK)-signaling pathway, which is formed by these genes, has been shown to be upstream of AKT-signaling in promoting malignant behaviors of high-grade gliomas. BCAR1 (also known as p130Cas), which is the second most significant key molecule, is also known to be a mediator of growth factor-dependent migration through tyrosine phosphorylation in glioma cells.
Comparison to Hubba
We compared the NetHiKe results with the Hubba results as an existing similar method. Because Hubba cannot manipulate the node weights, we used only the gene names as an input for Hubba with the six different algorithms, as in the ERBB comparison case (see the “Methods” for the details). Additional file7 shows the top 16 genes of the six Hubba methods, which represents the same number of genes found in the NetHiKe results with p<0. 01. There were no overlapping genes between the NetHiKe results and the Hubba results. In contrast, there were several overlapping genes among the six Hubba methods. When we mapped the differentially expressed genes in glioblastoma obtained from TCGA to these results, the genes were distributed across all of the results from both NetHiKe and Hubba. This observation could indicate that the listed genes of both methods are related to glioblastoma biology. For example, MAP2, which was selected by NetHiKe and is differentially expressed in glioma, is known to be one of the neuronal differentiation markers, and its expression level is naturally decreased in brain tumors.
The summary of the Hubba results for GBM data
Therefore, these results show that NetHiKe captures the nodes that are on the periphery of the major hub nodes. We think that this outcome arises because nlBC includes only the shortest paths with both ends in the input nodes. This characteristic reduces the shortest paths that are concentrated on the major hubs with no relationships to the input genes. Consequently, NetHiKe is able to mine the hidden key molecules that have sufficient biological meaning and fewer degrees than the major hub nodes.
We have proposed an analysis method, Network-based Hidden Key Molecule Miner (NetHiKe), which can extract limited numbers of hidden key molecules relevant to genes provided as input, using a human biomolecular network. NetHiKe comprises three steps: mapping the input genes onto the network, a node-limited betweenness centrality (nlBC) calculation, and validation of the statistical significance by simulated p-values. NetHiKe tends to capture the nodes with fewer degrees than major hub nodes, which are usually intensive research targets. We have confirmed that NetHiKe’s outputs contain sufficient biological information and that the input node weights appropriately produce a change in the results based on the biological meanings. Furthermore, with the glioblastoma analysis, we demonstrated that NetHiKe can be used for analyzing practical biology data produced by genome-wide experimental methodologies.
The present knowledge about cell biology is enormous, and thus, the derivation of informative meaning from genome-wide experimental results is urgently needed. We anticipate that this simplicity will contribute to additional striking insights into cellular activity and help researchers to determine future research directions.
We used the Pathway Commons dataset, released on Oct 27, 2011, to construct a human biomolecular network. Pathway Commons currently includes the following nine data sources: BioGRID, The Cancer Cell Map, the HPRD, HumanCyc, the databases of the Systems Biology Center NewYork, IntAct, the Molecular Interaction Database (MINT), the NCI-Nature Pathway Interaction Database and Reactome; thus, it includes many types of biomolecular interactions, such as biochemical reactions, complex assembly, transport and catalysis events, and physical interactions involving proteins, DNA, RNA, small molecules and complexes.
We visualized the degree distribution of the network that was constructed from the pathway commons data (Additional file8A), and we found that there were extra high-degree nodes, which disturb the power-law of the log-log degree distribution. To obtain a more reliable biomolecular network, we extracted the binary relationships of biomolecules that represented at least two of the nine data sources used by the Pathway Commons. Again, we visualized the degree distribution of this edge-selected network; the distribution now followed the power-law clearly (Additional file8B). We used this network in further analyses.
In a network construction step, redundant edges and self-directed edges may exist if multiple data sources include the same interaction or a multimeric protein complex. Because the nlBC algorithm described below does not take into account multiple edges or self-directed edges, all of the redundant edges were collapsed into single edges, and all of the self-directed edges were pruned from the network. Consequently, by ignoring the tiny disconnected components, we obtained a human biomolecular network: a connected, unweighted, undirected graph with 7,456 nodes and 35,553 edges.
Node-limited betweenness centrality
The betweenness centrality of a node can be calculated by counting the number of shortest paths passing through the node and the entire number of shortest paths between arbitrary pairs of nodes in the graph.
Normally, the betweenness centrality of a node is calculated based on all of the nodes in the graph. However, in this study, as we wanted to identify the nodes that have a close relationship to the input nodes, we developed a novel variant of betweenness centrality, named “node-limited betweenness centrality,” to mine the hidden key molecules from among the whole background network. The variant method includes only the shortest paths for which both ends are in the input nodes. In addition, the method can manipulate the weights of both ends.
w(x) is the weight value of the node x. Under the definition of nlBC, we can define the subgraph H that connects all of the input nodes as a set of shortest paths, and we extracted this subgraph to visualize the results and compare NetHiKe with other methods.
Evaluating statistical significance
In this study, we set n = 20,000, and the simulation count can be controlled by one of the program options.
ErbB signaling pathway
The ErbB signaling pathway plays an important role in cell growth and cancer development[19, 41]. Although the complete function of the pathway remains unknown, the ErbB signaling pathway is usually represented by the four transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptors (ERBB1 to ERBB4), several ligands of the receptors, various types of transcription factors and the complex signaling network between the receptors and the transcription factors (for example, see or other pathway databases available on the web). We selected 10 ligands and 30 transcription factors from the ErbB pathway (see Additional file1), and these molecules represent the entrance and the exit of the information flows through the pathway. In the first step of the validation, the weights of the genes were set to 1.0, and in the later step, the weight of NRG2 was calibrated from 2.0 to 20.0 for the methodology verification.
Although visualizing a network that includes a large number of nodes is often difficult, it is important for understanding the relationships among the nodes of interest. In this study, we visualized only the key molecules and the input genes with the subgraph containing the nodes connecting them (e.g., Figure2). We used Cytoscape2.8.2 for visualizing the network, and the Spring Embedded layout option was applied to the network to provide an overview of the relationships between the input nodes and the key molecules. For this visualization, the NetHiKe software produces input files for Cytoscape were as follows: background network information (.sif) and node attributes (.noa).
The pathway interaction database
The Pathway Interaction Database[1, 2] is a curated collection of information about known biomolecular interactions and key cellular processes assembled into signaling pathways. The database also has a web-based pathway search interface. Once the gene list is uploaded to the database, it calculates the p-values for each pathway, depending on the number of input genes that are included in the pathway. The functions of the input genes can be estimated through the output pathways with p-values; thus, we used it as a typical over-representation analysis (ORA) to grasp the approximate meanings of the input list of genes.
Hubba is one of the most widely used network analysis programs in the molecular biology area, and we can use it through the web interface or Cytoscape plug-in. Hubba takes a network as the input data and can evaluate the importance of nodes via various methods. In this study, we used the following six methods: degree, BottleNeck, Edge Percolation Component (EPC), Maximum Neighborhood Component (MNC), Density of Maximum Neighborhood Component (DMNC), and betweenness centrality. To import our data into Hubba, we extracted the sub-network that consists of all pairs of shortest paths connecting all of the input nodes.
GBM data from TCGA
With the recent advances in next-generation DNA sequencing technology, comprehensive cancer genome analyses are now underway[20, 44]. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) is a large-scale collaborative effort to systematically characterize the genomic changes that occur in cancer by applying genome analysis technologies. TCGA is designed to target many types of cancer and to characterize various genomic changes in cancer, including somatic mutation, mRNA and miRNA expression, methylation aberration and so on. Among these data sets, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), which is one of the most aggressive types of primary brain tumor, has been analyzed since the early stages of TCGA history. The list of genes used for this analysis was downloaded from TCGA data browser website on the TCGA data portal. The TCGA data browser website has a user-friendly interface for downloading lists of genes matching many types of search conditions from the accumulated TCGA experimental results.
Somatic mutation data
Using the Data Portal web of TCGA, we obtained the somatic mutated genes for the following conditions: for “Disease Type”, we selected “GBM Glioblastoma multiforme”; for “Validated Somatic Mutations”, we selected “any non-silent-validated” and for Frequency ≥ 1.0%, we used the default value of the setting. We filtered out the genes that were analyzed in a small number (<100) of samples and used the mutation ratio (percentage) as the weight of each gene (Additional file1, sheet “GBM_analysis”).
In the TCGA Data Portal site, we downloaded the list of differentially expressed genes in GBM with the following conditions: “AgilentG4502A_07 log2 tumor/normal ratio” was selected for “Gene Expression”; the ratio values were set between -1.2 and 1.2, and Frequency was over 40 percent. The resulting list is available as the second sheet of Additional file7.
The NetHiKe software is written in C++ and Python and is available at the following website. http://tsjshg.bitbucket.org/nethike.
Because it requires considerable system memory (4 GB or more), this software should be run on a 64-bit system.
Node-limited betweenness centrality
Network-based Hidden Key Molecule Miner
Protein-protein interaction network
The Cancer Genome Atlas.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19650069 to S.T. and 24221011 to H.A.
- Schaefer CF, Anthony K, Krupa S, Buchoff J, Day M, Hannay T, Buetow KH: PID: the Pathway Interaction Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37: D674-D679. 10.1093/nar/gkn653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pathway Interaction Database. [http://pid.nci.nih.gov/]
- Huang daW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA: Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc. 2009, 4: 44-57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spirin V, Mirny LA: Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 12123-12128. 10.1073/pnas.2032324100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Georgii E, Dietmann S, Uno T, Pagel P, Tsuda K: Enumeration of condition-dependent dense modules in protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics. 2009, 25: 933-940. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp080.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cerami E, Demir E, Schultz N, Taylor BS, Sander C: Automated network analysis identifies core pathways in glioblastoma. PLoS ONE. 2010, 5: e8918-10.1371/journal.pone.0008918.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yamada T, Bork P: Evolution of biomolecular networks: lessons from metabolic and protein interactions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009, 10: 791-803. 10.1038/nrm2787.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Valente TW, Coronges K, Lakon C, Costenbader E: How Correlated Are Network Centrality Measures?. Connect (Tor). 2008, 28: 16-26.Google Scholar
- Vallabhajosyula RR, Chakravarti D, Lutfeali S, Ray A, Raval A: Identifying hubs in protein interaction networks. PLoS ONE. 2009, 4: e5344-10.1371/journal.pone.0005344.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Agarwal S, Deane CM, Porter MA, Jones NS: Revisiting date and party hubs: novel approaches to role assignment in protein interaction networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010, 6: e1000817-10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000817.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zotenko E, Mestre J, O’Leary DP, Przytycka TM: Why do hubs in the yeast protein interaction network tend to be essential: reexamining the connection between the network topology and essentiality. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008, 4: e1000140-10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000140.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lin CY, Chin CH, Wu HH, Chen SH, Ho CW, Ko MT: Hubba: hub objects analyzer–a framework of interactome hubs identification for network biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36: W438-W443. 10.1093/nar/gkn257.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wu J, Vallenius T, Ovaska K, Westermarck J, Makela TP, Hautaniemi S: Integrated network analysis platform for protein-protein interactions. Nat Methods. 2009, 6: 75-77. 10.1038/nmeth.1282.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brohee S, Faust K, Lima-Mendez G, Sand O, Janky R, Vanderstocken G, Deville Y, van Helden J: NeAT: a toolbox for the analysis of biological networks, clusters, classes and pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36: W444-W451. 10.1093/nar/gkn336.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Freeman L C: A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry. 1977, 40: 35-41. 10.2307/3033543.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fortunato S, Latora V, Marchiori M: Method to find community structures based on information centrality. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2004, 70: 056104-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baselga J, Swain SM: Novel anticancer targets: revisiting ERBB2 and discovering ERBB3. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009, 9: 463-475.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schoeberl B, Pace EA, Fitzgerald JB, Harms BD, Xu L, Nie L, Linggi B, Kalra A, Paragas V, Bukhalid R, Grantcharova V, Kohli N, West KA, Leszczyniecka M, Feldhaus MJ, Kudla AJ, Nielsen UB: Therapeutically targeting ErbB3: a key node in ligand-induced activation of the ErbB receptor-PI3K axis. Sci Signal. 2009, 2: ra31-10.1126/scisignal.2000352.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Normanno N, De Luca A, Bianco C, Strizzi L, Mancino M, Maiello MR, Carotenuto A, De Feo G, Caponigro F, Salomon DS: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling in cancer. Gene. 2006, 366: 2-16. 10.1016/j.gene.2005.10.018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McLendon R, Friedman A, Bigner D, Van Meir EG, Brat DJ, Mastrogianakis GM, Olson JJ, Mikkelsen T, Lehman N, Aldape K, Yung WK, Bogler O, Weinstein JN, VandenBerg S, Berger M, Prados M, Muzny D, Morgan M, Scherer S, Sabo A, Nazareth L, Lewis L, Hall O, Zhu Y, Ren Y, Alvi O, Yao J, Hawes A, Jhangiani S, Fowler G, San Lucas A, Kovar C, Cree A, Dinh H, Santibanez J, Joshi V, Gonzalez-Garay ML, Miller CA, Milosavljevic A, Donehower L, Wheeler DA, Gibbs RA, Cibulskis K, Sougnez C, Fennell T, Mahan S, Wilkinson J, Ziaugra L, Onofrio R, Bloom T, Nicol R, Ardlie K, Baldwin J, Gabriel S, Lander ES, Ding L, Fulton RS, McLellan MD, Wallis J, Larson DE, Shi X, Abbott R, Fulton L, Chen K, Koboldt DC, Wendl MC, Meyer R, Tang Y, Lin L, Osborne JR, Dunford-Shore BH, Miner TL, Delehaunty K, Markovic C, Swift G, Courtney W, Pohl C, Abbott S, Hawkins A, Leong S, Haipek C, Schmidt H, Wiechert M, Vickery T, Scott S, Dooling DJ, Chinwalla A, Weinstock GM, Mardis ER, Wilson RK, Getz G, Winckler W, Verhaak RG, Lawrence MS, O’Kelly M, Robinson J, Alexe G, Beroukhim R, Carter S, Chiang D, Gould J, Gupta S, Korn J, Mermel C, Mesirov J, Monti S, Nguyen H, Parkin M, Reich M, Stransky N, Weir BA, Garraway L, Golub T, Meyerson M, Chin L, Protopopov A, Zhang J, Perna I, Aronson S, Sathiamoorthy N, Ren G, Yao J, Wiedemeyer WR, Kim H, Kong SW, Xiao Y, Kohane IS, Seidman J, Park PJ, Kucherlapati R, Laird PW, Cope L, Herman JG, Weisenberger DJ, Pan F, Van den Berg, Van Neste L, Yi JM, Schuebel KE, Baylin SB, Absher DM, Li JZ, Southwick A, Brady S, Aggarwal A, Chung T, Sherlock G, Brooks JD, Myers RM, Spellman PT, Purdom E, Jakkula LR, Lapuk AV, Marr H, Dorton S, Choi YG, Han J, Ray A, Wang V, Durinck S, Robinson M, Wang NJ, Vranizan K, Peng V, Van Name E, Fontenay GV, Ngai J, Conboy JG, Parvin B, Feiler HS, Speed TP, Gray JW, Brennan C, Socci ND, Olshen A, Taylor BS, Lash A, Schultz N, Reva B, Antipin Y, Stukalov A, Gross B, Cerami E, Wang WQ, Qin LX, Seshan VE, Villafania L, Cavatore M, Borsu L, Viale A, Gerald W, Sander C, Ladanyi M, Perou CM, Hayes DN, Topal MD, Hoadley KA, Qi Y, Balu S, Shi Y, Wu J, Penny R, Bittner M, Shelton T, Lenkiewicz E, Morris S, Beasley D, Sanders S, Kahn A, Sfeir R, Chen J, Nassau D, Feng L, Hickey E, Barker A, Gerhard DS, Vockley J, Compton C, Vaught J, Fielding P, Ferguson ML, Schaefer C, Zhang J, Madhavan S, Buetow KH, Collins F, Good P, Guyer M, Ozenberger B, Peterson J, Thomson E: Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature. 2008, 455: 1061-1068. 10.1038/nature07385.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sieg DJ, Hauck CR, Ilic D, Klingbeil CK, Schaefer E, Damsky CH, Schlaepfer DD: FAK integrates growth-factor and integrin signals to promote cell migration. Nat Cell Biol. 2000, 2: 249-256. 10.1038/35010517.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lin AH, Eliceiri BP, Levin EG: FAK mediates the inhibition of glioma cell migration by truncated 24 kDa FGF-2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009, 382: 503-507. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.03.084.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Halder J, Lin YG, Merritt WM, Spannuth WA, Nick AM, Honda T, Kamat AA, Han LY, Kim TJ, Lu C, Tari AM, Bornmann W, Fernandez A, Lopez-Berestein G, Sood AK: Therapeutic efficacy of a novel focal adhesion kinase inhibitor TAE226 in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2007, 67: 10976-10983. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2667.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hochwald SN, Nyberg C, Zheng M, Zheng D, Wood C, Massoll NA, Magis A, Ostrov D, Cance WG, Golubovskaya VM: A novel small molecule inhibitor of FAK decreases growth of human pancreatic cancer. Cell Cycle. 2009, 8: 2435-2443. 10.4161/cc.8.15.9145.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Beierle EA, Ma X, Stewart J, Nyberg C, Trujillo A, Cance WG, Golubovskaya VM: Inhibition of focal adhesion kinase decreases tumor growth in human neuroblastoma. Cell Cycle. 2010, 9: 1005-1015. 10.4161/cc.9.5.10936.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hu Y, Pioli PD, Siegel E, Zhang Q, Nelson J, Chaturbedi A, Mathews MS, Ro DI, Alkafeef S, Hsu N, Hamamura M, Yu L, Hess KR, Tromberg BJ, Linskey ME, Zhou YH: EFEMP1 suppresses malignant glioma growth and exerts its action within the tumor extracellular compartment. Mol Cancer. 2011, 10: 123-10.1186/1476-4598-10-123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Evans IM, Yamaji M, Britton G, Pellet-Many C, Lockie C, Zachary IC, Frankel P: Neuropilin-1 signaling through p130Cas tyrosine phosphorylation is essential for growth factor-dependent migration of glioma and endothelial cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2011, 31: 1174-1185. 10.1128/MCB.00903-10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kim JH, Zheng LT, Lee WH, Suk K: Pro-apoptotic role of integrin β3 in glioma cells. J Neurochem. 2011, 117: 494-503. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07219.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tatard VM, Xiang C, Biegel JA, Dahmane N: ZNF238 is expressed in postmitotic brain cells and inhibits brain tumor growth. Cancer Res. 2010, 70: 1236-1246. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-2249.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hecker TP, Grammer JR, Gillespie GY, Stewart J, Gladson CL: Focal adhesion kinase enhances signaling through the Shc/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in anaplastic astrocytoma tumor biopsy samples. Cancer Res. 2002, 62: 2699-2707.Google Scholar
- Cerami EG, Gross BE, Demir E, Rodchenkov I, Babur O, Anwar N, Schultz N, Bader GD, Sander C: Pathway Commons, a web resource for biological pathway data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39 (Database issue): D685—D690-Google Scholar
- Stark C, Breitkreutz BJ, Reguly T, Boucher L, Breitkreutz A, Tyers M: BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: D535—D539-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The Cancer Cell Map. [http://cancer.cellmap.org/cellmap/]
- Keshava Prasad TS, Goel R, Kandasamy K, Keerthikumar S, Kumar S, Mathivanan S, Telikicherla D, Raju R, Shafreen B, Venugopal A, Balakrishnan L, Marimuthu A, Banerjee S, Somanathan DS, Sebastian A, Rani S, Ray S, Harrys Kishore CJ, Kanth S, Ahmed M, Kashyap MK, Mohmood R, Ramachandra YL, Krishna V, Rahiman BA, Mohan S, Ranganathan P, Ramabadran S, Chaerkady R, Pandey A: Human Protein Reference Database–2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37: D767—D772-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Karp PD, Ouzounis CA, Moore-Kochlacs C, Goldovsky L, Kaipa P, Ahrén D, Tsoka S, Darzentas N, Kunin V, López-Bigas N: Expansion of the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases to 160 genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33: 6083-6089. 10.1093/nar/gki892.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- SBCNY. [http://www.sbcny.org]
- Aranda B, Achuthan P, Alam-Faruque Y, Armean I, Bridge A, Derow C, Feuermann M, Ghanbarian AT, Kerrien S, Khadake J, Kerssemakers J, Leroy C, Menden M, Michaut M, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Neuhauser SN, Orchard S, Perreau V, Roechert B, van Eijk K, Hermjakob H: The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2010. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38: D525—D531-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ceol A, Chatr Aryamontri A, Licata L, Peluso D, Briganti L, Perfetto L, Castagnoli L, Cesareni G: MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2009 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38: D532—D539-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Matthews L, Gopinath G, Gillespie M, Caudy M, Croft D, de Bono B, Garapati P, Hemish J, Hermjakob H, Jassal B, Kanapin A, Lewis S, Mahajan S, May B, Schmidt E, Vastrik I, Wu G, Birney E, Stein L, D’Eustachio P: Reactome knowledgebase of human biological pathways and processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37: D619—D622-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Davison A, Hinkley D: Chapter 4 Tests. Bootstrap Methods and their Application. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997-1997.
- Wheeler DL, Dunn EF, Harari PM: Understanding resistance to EGFR inhibitors-impact on future treatment strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010, 7: 493-507. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- ErbB/HER SIgnaling (Cell Signaling Technology). [http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/pathway/ErbB_HER.html]
- Smoot ME, Ono K, Ruscheinski J, Wang PL, Ideker T: Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization. Bioinformatics. 2011, 27: 431-432. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq675.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kan Z, Jaiswal BS, Stinson J, Janakiraman V, Bhatt D, Stern HM, Yue P, Haverty PM, Bourgon R, Zheng J, Moorhead M, Chaudhuri S, Tomsho LP, Peters BA, Pujara K, Cordes S, Davis DP, Carlton VE, Yuan W, Li L, Wang W, Eigenbrot C, Kaminker JS, Eberhard DA, Waring P, Schuster SC, Modrusan Z, Zhang Z, Stokoe D, de Sauvage FJ, Faham M, Seshagiri S: Diverse somatic mutation patterns and pathway alterations in human cancers. Nature. 2010, 466: 869-873. 10.1038/nature09208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The Cancer Genome Atlas Data Portal. [http://tcga-portal.nci.nih.gov/tcga-portal/AnomalySearch.jsp]