A Primer on Data Analytics in Functional Genomics: How to Move from Data to Insight?

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 21-32

  Grabowski, Piotr ^a   Rappsilber, Juri ^a,b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

data integration; data science; functional genomics; machine learning; systems biology

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFIER; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DATA PROCESSING; EPIGENETICS; FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS; HUMAN; LEARNING ALGORITHM; MACHINE LEARNING; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; SOFTWARE; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; ANIMAL; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING;

ANIMALS; DATA SCIENCE; GENOMICS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; MACHINE LEARNING; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85057555111     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: 13624326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2018.10.010     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J., Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, 2013, e175.
2. Hasin, Y., et al. Multi-omics approaches to disease. Genome Biol., 18, 2017, 83.
3. Kim, M., Tagkopoulos, I., Data integration and predictive modeling methods for multi-omics datasets. Mol. Omics 14 (2018), 8–25.
4. Liberali, P., et al. Single-cell and multivariate approaches in genetic perturbation screens. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16 (2015), 18–32.
5. Gawad, C., et al. Single-cell genome sequencing: current state of the science. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17 (2016), 175–188.
6. Karemaker, I.D., Vermeulen, M., Single-cell DNA methylation profiling: technologies and biological applications. Trends Biotechnol. 36 (2018), 952–965.
7. Liu, Y., et al. On the dependency of cellular protein levels on mRNA abundance. Cell 165 (2016), 535–550.
8. Boccio, P., et al. Integration of metabolomics and proteomics in multiple sclerosis: from biomarkers discovery to personalized medicine. Proteom. Clin. Appl. 10 (2016), 470–484.
9. Bahado-Singh, R., et al. Integrated proteomic and metabolomic prediction of term preeclampsia. Sci. Rep., 7, 2017 16189.
10. Kustatscher, G., et al. Pervasive coexpression of spatially proximal genes is buffered at the protein level. Mol. Syst. Biol., 13, 2017, 937.
11. Lindeboom, R.G.H., et al. Integrative multi‐omics analysis of intestinal organoid differentiation. Mol. Syst. Biol., 14, 2018, e8227.
12. Li, D., et al. Integrated analysis of phenome, genome, and transcriptome of hybrid rice uncovered multiple heterosis-related loci for yield increase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113 (2016), E6026–E6035.
13. Lachmann, A., et al. Massive mining of publicly available RNA-seq data from human and mouse. Nat. Commun., 9, 2018, 1366.
14. ENCODE Project Consortium, An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489 (2012), 57–74.
15. Vizcaíno, J.A., et al. 2016 update of the PRIDE database and its related tools. Nucleic Acids Res., 44, 2016 11033.
16. Lappalainen, I., et al. The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research. Nat. Genet. 47 (2015), 692–695.
17. Carithers, L.J., et al. A novel approach to high-quality postmortem tissue procurement: the GTEx project. Biopreserv. Biobank. 13 (2015), 311–319.
18. Mailman, M.D., et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat. Genet. 39 (2007), 1181–1186.
19. Perez-Riverol, Y., et al. Discovering and linking public omics data sets using the Omics Discovery index. Nat. Biotechnol. 35 (2017), 406–409.
20. Afgan, E., et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016), W3–W10.
21. Berthold, M.R., et al. KNIME – the Konstanz Information Miner: version 2.0 and Beyond. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11 (2009), 26–31.
22. Fillbrunn, A., et al. KNIME for reproducible cross-domain analysis of life science data. J. Biotechnol. 261 (2017), 149–156.
23. Conesa, A., et al. A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis. Genome Biol., 17, 2016, 13.
24. Bailey, T., et al. Practical guidelines for the comprehensive analysis of ChIP-seq data. PLoS Comput. Biol., 9, 2013, e1003326.
25. Angermueller, C., et al. Deep learning for computational biology. Mol. Syst. Biol., 12, 2016, 878.
26. Huang, S., et al. More is better: recent progress in multi-omics data integration methods. Front. Genet., 8, 2017, 84.
27. Camacho, D.M., et al. Next-generation machine learning for biological networks. Cell 173 (2018), 1581–1592.
28. Mulvey, C.M., et al. Using hyperLOPIT to perform high-resolution mapping of the spatial proteome. Nat. Protoc. 12 (2017), 1110–1135.
29. Itzhak, D.N., et al. Global, quantitative and dynamic mapping of protein subcellular localization. Elife, 2016, 5.
30. Ohta, S., et al. The protein composition of mitotic chromosomes determined using multiclassifier combinatorial proteomics. Cell 142 (2010), 810–821.
31. Moruz, L., et al. Training, selection, and robust calibration of retention time models for targeted proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 9 (2010), 5209–5216.
32. Li, Y., et al. Regression analysis of combined gene expression regulation in acute myeloid leukemia. PLoS Comput. Biol., 10, 2014, e1003908.
33. Lapek, J.D. Jr, et al. Detection of dysregulated protein-association networks by high-throughput proteomics predicts cancer vulnerabilities. Nat. Biotechnol. 35 (2017), 983–989.
34. Nazarov, P.V., et al. Interplay of microRNAs, transcription factors and target genes: linking dynamic expression changes to function. Nucleic Acids Res. 41 (2013), 2817–2831.
35. Hoadley, K.A., et al. Cell-of-origin patterns dominate the molecular classification of 10,000 tumors from 33 types of cancer. Cell, 304, 2018 291–304.e6.
36. Ringnér, M., What is principal component analysis?. Nat. Biotechnol. 26 (2008), 303–304.
37. Lindeboom, R.G.H., et al. The rules and impact of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay in human cancers. Nat. Genet. 48 (2016), 1112–1118.
38. He, Z., Yu, W., Stable feature selection for biomarker discovery. Comput. Biol. Chem. 34 (2010), 215–225.
39. Hall, M., et al. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11 (2009), 10–18.
40. Pedregosa, F., et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011), 2825–2830.
41. Durinck, S., et al. Mapping identifiers for the integration of genomic datasets with the R/Bioconductor package biomaRt. Nat. Protoc. 4 (2009), 1184–1191.
42. Cokelaer, T., et al. BioServices: a common Python package to access biological Web Services programmatically. Bioinformatics 29 (2013), 3241–3242.
43. Szklarczyk, D., et al. The STRING database in 2017: quality-controlled protein-protein association networks, made broadly accessible. Nucleic Acids Res. 45 (2017), D362–D368.
44. Chatr-Aryamontri, A., et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 45 (2017), D369–D379.
45. Huang, D.W., et al. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat. Protoc. 4 (2009), 44–57.
46. Kuleshov, M.V., et al. Enrichr: a comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016), W90–W97.
47. Subramanian, A., et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 (2005), 15545–15550.
48. Carey, M.A., Papin, J.A., Ten simple rules for biologists learning to program. PLoS Comput. Biol., 14, 2018, e1005871.