Open Access

PathNet: a tool for pathway analysis using topological information

Source Code for Biology and Medicine20127:10

DOI: 10.1186/1751-0473-7-10

Received: 5 July 2012

Accepted: 3 August 2012

Published: 24 September 2012

Abstract

Background

Identification of canonical pathways through enrichment of differentially expressed genes in a given pathway is a widely used method for interpreting gene lists generated from high-throughput experimental studies. However, most algorithms treat pathways as sets of genes, disregarding any inter- and intra-pathway connectivity information, and do not provide insights beyond identifying lists of pathways.

Results

We developed an algorithm (PathNet) that utilizes the connectivity information in canonical pathway descriptions to help identify study-relevant pathways and characterize non-obvious dependencies and connections among pathways using gene expression data. PathNet considers both the differential expression of genes and their pathway neighbors to strengthen the evidence that a pathway is implicated in the biological conditions characterizing the experiment. As an adjunct to this analysis, PathNet uses the connectivity of the differentially expressed genes among all pathways to score pathway contextual associations and statistically identify biological relations among pathways. In this study, we used PathNet to identify biologically relevant results in two Alzheimer’s disease microarray datasets, and compared its performance with existing methods. Importantly, PathNet identified de-regulation of the ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis pathway as an important component in Alzheimer’s disease progression, despite the absence of this pathway in the standard enrichment analyses.

Conclusions

PathNet is a novel method for identifying enrichment and association between canonical pathways in the context of gene expression data. It takes into account topological information present in pathways to reveal biological information. PathNet is available as an R workspace image fromhttp://www.bhsai.org/downloads/pathnet/.

Keywords

Canonical pathways Pathway enrichment Pathway association Pathway interaction Pathway topology

Background

High-throughput technologies enable the study of biological processes at the systems level. However, analyzing the large amount of data generated by high-throughput techniques and translating these data into biological knowledge is currently a critical bottleneck in systems biology. To study a disease at the system level, DNA microarrays are routinely used to provide a comparison of gene expression patterns in control vs. disease conditions. Because this comparison usually reveals a large number of differentially expressed genes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the effect of each gene individually. In addition, high-throughput data often contain considerable noise, making individual or isolated gene observations less likely to be relevant. Using statistical methods to summarize the data can help reduce noise and increase the reproducibility of the results[1]. However, translating these results into biological knowledge remains challenging.

The most commonly used methods for summarizing gene expression data rely on enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes to identify and rank Gene Ontology (GO) terms and canonical pathways in order to characterize the underlying biological nature of the data. Comprehensive reviews of these approaches are available[24]. While the hierarchically ordered GO terms describe the properties of gene products, canonical pathways describe the connectivity between genes and gene products involved in a given biological process. The simplest and most widely used method for identifying pathways based on gene expression data is the hypergeometric test[5], which assesses whether the number of differentially expressed genes in a pathway is significantly higher than what would be expected by chance. A popular alternative to the hypergeometric test for assessing the relevance of pathways is the gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA)[6]. This method considers the relative positions of pre-defined gene sets (pathways) in a rank-ordered list of differentially expressed genes, in order to determine if a pathway is relevant to the experimental study.

Well-studied canonical pathways provide extensive information about how the genes and gene products interact and regulate each other. However, most of the pathway analysis methods, including the hypergeometric test and GSEA, treat pathways as lists of genes and do not take into account the connectivity information embedded within the pathway. More recently, some studies[79] have included such topological information for calculating enrichment of signaling pathways, by assigning different weights to genes based on their location in the pathway. Nevertheless, these methods still consider each pathway as an isolated entity, where, in reality, pathways are not isolated; they may share genes. In fact, out of 130 non-metabolic pathways from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database[10], 88 pathways have 20% or fewer genes unique to that pathway, while only 6 pathways have 80% or more unique genes. In fact, all pathways shared at least one gene with another pathway. Thus, to fully take into account the biological information collected and encoded in a database such as KEGG, all pathways should be pooled together to allow for exploitation of inter-pathway connectivity information. However, none of the current methods for pathway analysis incorporates intra- and inter-pathway connectivity information for enrichment analysis.

In this study, we have attempted to address these issues by developing an algorithm for examining pathway enrichment that uses differential gene expression (or other molecular profiling data) to analyze Path ways based on Net work information (PathNet). To incorporate inter-pathway connectivity, we combined KEGG pathways (from http://www.kegg.com) to create a pooled pathway. For enrichment analysis, PathNet first identifies the association of each gene with a disease (referred to as direct evidence) by comparing gene expression data in control patients vs. patients with the disease. Then, PathNet identifies the association of each gene’s neighbors with the disease (referred to as indirect evidence) based on the inter- and intra-pathway connectivity information present in the pooled pathway. Finally, PathNet combines the direct and indirect evidences to obtain the significance of the combined evidence. Based on the statistical significance of the combined evidence for all genes, PathNet uses the hypergeometric test to uncover the pathways associated with the disease.

As genes in pathways function in a coordinated fashion, association studies between pathways in the context of gene expression data can unravel the underlying complexity of biological processes. Li et al.[11] proposed that pathways are more likely to interact when the number of protein-protein interactions (PPI) between proteins from two pathways are greater than what would be expected by chance. Based on this assumption, they create a network of pathways and identify the activated pathway modules in a given study by mapping the gene expression data enriched pathways onto the network. Recently, Kelder et al.[12] identified indirect associations between pathways by integrating pathway information, PPI networks, and gene expression data. Liu et al.[13] estimated crosstalk by mapping gene expression on PPIs between proteins from the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathway and other pathways sharing genes with the AD pathway. As PPI networks are usually noisy, identifying indirect associations using PPI network might produce false positive associations. In contrast with other approaches, PathNet assesses the association in the context of gene expression data based on intra- and inter-pathway connectivity in the pooled pathway. This association of specific pathways, beyond the mere overlap of genes annotated as belonging to more than one pathway, can reveal otherwise hidden pathway dependencies (and hence biological insights) that are not directly attainable from enrichment analysis alone.

To illustrate the utility of PathNet, we applied it to two AD microarray datasets and analyzed the results in the context of existing knowledge. In addition, we show how the statistical scores of the associations between pathways through gene expression data facilitated the identification of a biological association between the AD pathway and ubiquitin-meditated proteolysis pathway.

Methods

Pathway network from KEGG pathways

Pathways from the KEGG database[10] available in November 2010 were downloaded as KEGG Markup Language files. Each of the 130 non-metabolic pathways present in the KEGG database were represented as directed graphs, where the nodes and edges of a graph were, respectively, characterized by unique gene IDs and interactions in the pathway. KEGG interactions representing processes, such as phosphorylation, dephosphorylation, activation, inhibition, and repression, were accounted for by directed edges, whereas bidirectional edges were used to represent binding/association events. The complete mapping between edge directionality and KEGG protein interaction attributes is provided in Additional file1. All 130 pathways were combined to create a pooled pathway, and the R package, named ‘An interface to the BOOST graph library,' from Bioconductor (http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/rel-ease/bioc/html/RBGL.html) was used to convert this information into the adjacency matrix (A). The adjacency matrix is a non-symmetric square matrix, where the number of rows (and columns) represents the number of genes present in the pooled pathway. The diagonal elements of matrix A were set to zero to exclude self-interactions. The non-diagonal element Aij represents the directed KEGG protein interaction between nodes i and j:
A ij = { 1 if there is an interaction from node i to node j 0 otherwise
(1)

In the case of a bidirectional interaction, two edges are introduced, one from node i to node j and another from node j to node i. Although the bulk of the genes annotated in KEGG pathways are present on most microarray chips, about 10% of the genes are typically missing. In order to only include information derived from experimental data, we re-constructed the adjacency matrix for each chip-set by deleting rows and columns of genes that were not examined experimentally. In order to be consistent in the analysis presented below, we also redefined the pooled pathway for each chip-set to include only genes for which experimental data exists. PathNet automatically carries out this step from the input files.

Pathway enrichment analysis

PathNet combines two types of evidence for pathway enrichment analysis, referred to as direct evidence and indirect evidence (Figure1). Direct evidence accounts for the differential expression of gene i between two experimental conditions (control and disease), while indirect evidence considers the differential expression of the neighbors of gene i in the pooled pathway. The nominal p-values associated with the direct and indirect evidences of each gene were combined to obtain the p-value of the combined evidence, which is subsequently used for the pathway enrichment analysis.
Figure 1

Schematic representation of PathNet analysis. The direct evidence pertaining to differential gene expression is detected via microarray analysis while the indirect evidence of a gene is calculated from the direct evidences of its neighbors in the pathway. The direct and indirect evidences are combined, and the combined evidence is used to identify pathway enrichments via a hypergeometric test. The combined input of microarray data and pathway information yields a final pathway enrichment list that can be associated with the different test conditions in the samples.

We used the t-test to calculate a nominal p-value for the direct evidence (piD) in order to gauge whether the average expression of gene i was different between the two experimental conditions. The lower the pD-value, the more likely it is that the observed difference in gene expression is significant. Alternative methods, such as SAM[14] or ANOVA[15], can also be used to estimate pD.

To ascertain the significance of the indirect evidence, we need to test whether the expression of each neighbor of gene i is or is not different between the two experimental conditions. To characterize this difference, we first calculated the indirect evidence score (SI i ), which incorporates the topological information of the pathways. This score captures a weighted level of differential expression of the neighbors of gene i, and is calculated using the following equation:
S I i = j G , i j A ij * l o g 10 p j D
(2)
where G denotes the set of all genes present in the pooled pathway, Aij is defined as in Eq. (1), and pjD denotes the nominal p-value of the direct evidence for gene j which is used to assign the weight of the contribution. The nominal p-value associated with the indirect evidence (piI) was inferred by testing if the observed score SIi was greater than the corresponding random values created by shuffling the pjD-values in the pooled pathway. In each of the N shuffles, all pjD-values were scrambled by randomly re-assigning their indices. As the connectivity in the pooled pathway remained fixed, for each gene i in the nth shuffle, we calculated the corresponding random score SIiR(n). Next, for each gene i, we formally re-constructed the probability density distribution function for the random scores piR. Practically, we estimated the piI-values by counting the number of random scores larger than the actual scores, as follows:
p i I S I i P i R x d x 1 N n = 1 N { 1 if S I i R n > S I i 0 otherwise
(3)

In our calculations, we used N = 2,000 shuffles. As the estimated piI-values are integer multiples of 1/N, we cannot accurately estimate piI-values if they are less than 1/N. To address this issue, we assigned 1/N as the minimum piI-value. The lower the piI-value, the more likely it is that the observed weighted gene expression pattern around gene i is not a random pattern.

We obtained the p-value of the combined evidence (piC) for each gene i by using Fisher’s method[16] to aggregate the nominal p-values associated with the direct and indirect evidences (piD and piI). Previous studies[17, 18] have shown that this method is optimal for combining independent p-values, when compared to other methods. In our case, the indirect evidence associated with a gene is dependent only on the magnitude of the differential gene expression of its neighbors, and not on its own expression levels, which formally ensures independence between the p-values. Additional file2 shows pD- versus pI-values for the datasets we used and there was no obvious dependency of these values on each other. We also verified that the set of pD- and pI-values were linearly independent for all comparisons by calculating a non-significant correlation coefficient in each test set. Accordingly, for gene i, the two probabilities were combined based on Fisher’s method, using the following equation:
p i C = 2 l n p i D * p i I P χ 4 2
(4)

where P(χ42) denotes the probability density function of the χ2 distribution with 4 degrees of freedom. Note that, even if the pD- and pI-values were correlated, they could still be combined using a modified version of Fisher’s method[19].

For genes that are isolated and not connected in any pathway, there are no pI-values to consider, hence pC = pD. Finally, we selected genes with piC < 0.05 as differentially expressed and used the hypergeometric test to calculate pathway enrichment. For all hypergeometric tests, we used the ‘phyper’ function of the R programming language.

Contextual association between pathways

As discussed above, KEGG pathways are not isolated; some genes are shared between pathways. Thus, differential gene expression in one pathway may be directly linked to differential gene expression in another pathway. Whereas the existing pathway annotations provide a static association among genes and pathways, gene expression data for particular conditions provide context-dependent information. Here, we considered all connections in the pooled pathway to identify possible contextual pathway-pathway associations based on a weighted measure of differential gene expression among shared pathway genes. Figure2 outlines three ways in which differential gene expression data can link two pathways that either directly share genes or are linked via gene connections annotated in other pathways.
Figure 2

Schematic representation of three scenarios of contextual association between pathways. Each illustration (A-C) shows two pathways (sets of both connected and isolated genes inside ellipsoids) with varying degrees of overlapping genes. The size of the circles (genes) represents the level of differential gene expression between control and disease patients (the higher the significance associated with the expression change, the larger the circle). The lines and arrows represent KEGG-derived interactions between genes as annotated in the pooled pathway, and the thick lines represent edges connecting genes from Pathway 1 to Pathway 2. (A) Overlapping pathways with high contextual association. Whereas Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 can be associated because genes A and B are shared between the two pathways, the fact that overlapping genes are directly connected to other differentially expressed genes (thick connections to large circles) enhances this association. (B) Overlapping pathways with low contextual association. The pathway maps are exactly the same as in case (A). However, Pathway 1 is “less” associated with Pathway 2 in the context of gene expression data, as the genes connected by thick edges are modestly differentially expressed (thick connections to small circles). (C) Non-overlapping pathways with high contextual association. Although, Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 do not share any genes, genes from these two pathways are connected based on inter-pathway connectivity inferred from the pooled pathway. Pathway 1 is contextually associated with Pathway 2 because the genes connecting these two pathways are differentially expressed.

We calculated the contextual score SCαβ to quantify the biological association via differentially expressed genes from the pooled pathway, between two pathways α and β. The SCαβ from pathway α to pathway β is calculated using the following equation:
S C αβ = i g α j g β A ij * l o g 10 p i D * l o g 10 p j D
(5)

where gα and gβ denote the set of genes in pathway α and β, respectively, Aij is defined as in Eq. (1), and pi/jD denotes the nominal p-value of the direct evidence for gene i/j used to construct the weight for each Aij value. Note that as Aii 0, the SCαβ does not contain self interactions and only includes gene pairs that have been connected to each other via the pooled pathway. The formulation uses only the pD-values associated with the direct evidence and not the pC-values, which already contain pathway information via the indirect evidence as calculated in Eq. (2). A higher SCαβ indicates a stronger contextual association between the pathways.

To evaluate the probability of finding a SCαβ greater than expected by chance alone, we followed the same procedure used to estimate the p-values for the indirect evidence. The p-value associated with the SCαβ (pαβ) was inferred by testing if the observed score SCαβ were greater than the corresponding random values created by shuffling all the pD-values in the pooled pathway N times. With the connectivity in the pooled pathway fixed, for each pathway pair α and β in the nth shuffle, we calculated the corresponding random score SCαβR(n). We then formally re-constructed, for each pathway pair α and β, the probability density distribution function for the random scores PαβR. Finally, we estimated the pαβ-values by counting the number of random scores larger than the actual scores for each pathway pair:
p αβ S C αβ P αβ R x d x 1 N n = 1 N { 1 if S C αβ R n > S C αβ 0 otherwise
(6)

We used N = 2,000 shuffles to estimate the pαβ-values. The lower the pαβ-value, the more likely it is that the observed weighted gene expression pattern connecting pathways α and β are not a random pattern.

We also tested the extent to which the genes from pathways α and β overlap, based on common genes between the pathways. This information is only based on the KEGG database and is not dependent on gene expression data, i.e., we used the full complement of KEGG genes to estimate this overlap. The hypergeometric test was used to estimate if the observed overlap was statistically significant.

Microarray datasets

We evaluated the performance of the PathNet algorithm using two microarray datasets generated by two different research groups. Both datasets were downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) and involved AD-related studies. The first dataset (GEO ID: GDS810)[20], which we refer to as the disease progression dataset, investigated the expression profile of genes from the hippocampal region of the brain as a function of the progression of the disease (incipient, moderate, and severe). We refer to the second dataset[21] as the brain regions dataset. This dataset examined the effect of AD in six different brain regions: the entorhinal cortex, hippocampal field CA1, middle temporal gyrus, posterior cingulate cortex, superior frontal gyrus, and primary visual cortex (GEO ID: GSE5281). Because different regions of the brain are involved in controlling different biological processes, this dataset can provide insights into the tissue-specific activation of pathways. The entorhinal cortex region samples were obtained from patients in the early stages of AD, while the remaining samples were obtained from patients in the later stages of the disease.

In the disease progression dataset, the expression of each gene in patients with incipient, moderate, and severe disease was compared with control patients using the t-test. In the brain regions dataset, gene expression was compared between diseased and control patients for each brain region. We applied the proposed pathway enrichment method for each of these nine comparisons (three from the disease progression dataset and six from the brain regions dataset).

Results and discussions

Comparison of PathNet with existing algorithms in identifying pathways biologically relevant to AD

We used PathNet to identify the enrichment of pathways in each of the nine comparisons described above. We also compared the results of PathNet with three existing algorithms for pathway analysis that are currently in wide use: the hypergeometric test[5]; gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA)[6]; and signaling pathway impact analysis (SPIA)[8]. The GSEA and SPIA packages were downloaded from the Broad Institute (http://www.broadinstitute.org/gsea/index.jsp) and Bioconductor (http://www.bioconductor.org) Web sites, respectively. For GSEA, we used the provided Java-version of the program with a pre-ranked gene list. To ensure the comparability of results, we used the same version of the KEGG pathways (downloaded in November 2010) for all comparisons. Finally, to account for multiple comparisons, we corrected the pathway enrichment p-values for family-wise error rate (corrected p-values are represented as pFWER) and used a significance threshold of 0.05 for all comparisons. The results of all nine comparisons using each of the four pathway analysis methods are provided in Additional file3, Additional file4, and Additional file5. Here, we summarize the results and the biological relevance of our findings.

Our primary aim was to determine if these methods could identify whether the AD pathway (KEGG ID: 5010) is significantly enriched in AD patients vs. control patients. Figure3 shows the degree of enrichment of the AD pathway for each of the comparisons, as measured by pFWER. Figure3A shows that using the disease progression dataset, none of the methods could identify significant enrichment in the AD pathway during the early (incipient) stages of the disease. As the disease progresses, the significance of the enrichment increased in all four methods. During the late (severe) stages of the disease, three of the four methods could identify significant enrichment in the AD pathway. Notably, at moderate stages of the disease, only PathNet was able to determine that the AD pathway was significantly enriched in AD patients.
Figure 3

Enrichment results for the AD pathway. Enrichment results (pFWER: family-wise error rate corrected p-values) for the AD pathway using four different methods in the (A) disease progression dataset and (B) brain regions dataset (VCX: primary visual cortex, EC: entorhinal cortex, HIP: hippocampal field CA1, MTG: middle temporal gyrus, PC: posterior cingulate cortex, and SFG: superior frontal gyrus). Only PathNet could identify the AD pathway as significant in the moderate stage of the disease (A), and the VCX region (B).

In the brain regions dataset, all of the methods could identify significant enrichment of the AD pathway in the middle temporal gyrus region and posterior cingulate cortex regions, however, none identified AD enrichment in the entorhinal cortex or superior frontal gyrus regions (Figure3B). One plausible reason is that the entorhinal cortex samples were from patients with incipient disease. Interestingly, only PathNet could identify significant enrichment of the AD pathway in the primary visual cortex. There is strong evidence in the literature that the primary visual cortex region is indeed affected by AD[22, 23]; hence, this is likely not a false positive finding. In each of the comparisons, PathNet consistently yielded the lowest p-value (pFWER) for the AD pathway.

To test the sensitivity of PathNet with respect to the other three pathway analysis methods, we compared the enrichment levels of seven pathways that have been frequently associated with AD in the literature. Table1 shows the results from the three stages of the disease using the disease progression dataset, with samples taken from the hippocampus region of the brain, and the results in the brain regions dataset, with samples from the hippocampal field CA1. PathNet correctly identified most of these pathways as significantly enriched while the other three methods failed to do so. The complete set of results is provided in Additional file3, which corroborates the favorable performance of PathNet.
Table 1

Enrichment of pathways associated with AD

Pathway (KEGG ID)

PathNet

SPIA

GSEA

Hypergeometric test

Inc

Mod

Sev

HIP

Inc

Mod

Sev

HIP

Inc

Mod

Sev

HIP

Inc

Mod

Sev

HIP

AD pathway

(5010)

1.00

*0.01

*0.00

*0.00

1.00

0.14

*0.00

*0.01

1.00

0.81

0.72

0.34

1.00

0.06

*0.00

*0.00

Focal adhesion

(4510)

1.00

*0.00

*0.00

*0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.28

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Long-term pote…

(4720)

1.00

*0.00

*0.01

*0.04

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.37

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Regulation of a…

(4810)

*0.00

*0.00

*0.00

*0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Phosphatidylino…

(4070)

1.00

0.11

*0.00

0.52

    

1.00

1.00

0.54

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.21

1.00

Wnt signaling

(4310)

*0.00

1.00

*0.00

*0.03

1.00

1.00

0.92

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.91

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adherens junct…

(4520)

1.00

*0.00

0.13

*0.00

    

0.95

0.31

0.96

0.38

1.00

1.00

0.48

*0.01

Ubiquitin media…

(4120)

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.13

    

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.92

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.17

Enrichment (pFWER: family-wise error rate corrected p-values) of pathways associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) using four different pathway analysis methods (i.e., PathNet: the present study, SPIA: signaling pathway impact analysis, GSEA: gene set enrichment analysis, and the hypergeometric test), from the disease progression dataset (Inc: incipient, Mod: moderate, and Sev: severe) and from the brain regions dataset (HIP: hippocampal field CA1 region). The complete set of data is included in Additional files3, Additional files4, and Additional files5. The statistically significant p fwer - values (p fwer  < 0.05) for each pathway and method are indicated by an asterisk (*). PathNet was able to identify these pathways as significant more often than each of the other three methods. SPIA was not applicable (represented by missing enrichment scores) when certain topological characteristics of the pathway was not met.

To test the specificity of PathNet, we investigated the biological relevance of pathways co-enriched with the AD pathway. Table2 s hows that in six out of the nine comparisons where the AD pathway was enriched, we analyzed pathways co-enriched with the AD pathway. Eight pathways were co-enriched with the AD pathway in five or more of the six cases. Of these eight pathways, six were related either to AD (regulation of actin cytoskeleton; adherens junction; focal adhesion; and long-term potentiation) or to other neurological diseases (Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease). Both the Parkinson’s disease pathway and the Huntington’s disease pathway show significant overlap with the AD pathway, which explains why they were frequently co-enriched. There is evidence in the literature to support the association of each of these co-enriched pathways with AD. This qualitatively implies that most of the significantly enriched pathways identified by PathNet are unlikely to be biological false positives.
Table 2

Pathways co-enriched with the AD pathway

Frequency

Pathway name

(KEGG ID)

References

6

*Bacterial invasion…

(5100)

[24]

6

*Regulation of actin…

(4810)

[25]

5

*Adherens junction

(4520)

[26]

5

*Focal adhesion

(4510)

[2729]

5

*Huntington's disease

(5016)

[30]

5

*Long-term potenti…

(4720)

[31, 32]

5

*Parkinson's disease

(5012)

[30, 33]

5

*Pathogenic Escher

(5130)

NA

4

Endocytosis

(4144)

[34]

4

Melanoma

(5218)

[3537]

4

Pathways in cancer

(5200)

[3537]

4

Shigellosis

(5131)

NA

3

ECM-receptor

(4512)

[38]

3

Endometrial cancer

(5213)

[3537]

3

ErbB signaling

(4012)

[39]

3

Fc gamma R-

(4666)

[31]

3

Glioma

(5214)

[40]

3

MAPK signaling

(4010)

[41]

3

Phosphatidylinosit…

(4070)

[42, 43]

3

Progesterone-med…

(4914)

NA

3

Proteasome

(3050)

[44, 45]

List of pathways co-enriched with the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathway in the six out of nine comparisons (moderate and severe samples in the disease progression dataset; and primary visual cortex, hippocampal field CA1, middle temporal gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex regions in the brain regions dataset) where the AD pathway is enriched. The ‘Frequency’ column shows the number of times the pathway was co-enriched. Pathways that are frequently co-enriched (frequency ≥ 5) are indicated by an asterisk (*). The ‘References’ column provides support for the association of each of these co-enriched pathways with AD. NA: not available.

The samples from the disease progression dataset were collected from the hippocampal field CA1 region. Similarly, the brain regions dataset provides results of samples for patients with severe disease with samples also collected from the hippocampal field CA1 region. Therefore, the data from these two samples, collected in the hippocampus for severe AD patients, should be comparable and the overlap of their significantly enriched pathways can be considered as a measure of the quality of the pathway analysis methods. Figure4 shows the number of significantly enriched pathways from each dataset and their overlaps. We used the hypergeometric test to compute the significance of the overlap, where the results suggest that PathNet yielded the highest level of significance in overlap when compared to the other methods.
Figure 4

Overlap of pathways. Number of enriched pathways that overlap between two comparable datasets (hippocampal field CA1 region for patients with severe AD), using four different methods (i.e., PathNet: the present study, SPIA: signaling pathway impact analysis, GSEA: gene set enrichment analysis, and the hypergeometric test). As an example, PathNet identified 22 and 17 statistically significant pathways from the brain regions dataset and the disease progression dataset, respectively. Ten of these pathways overlapped. The statistical significances of the overlaps from each of the four methods were tested using the hypergeometric test; p-values were as follows: pPathNet = 2.0 × 10-5, pSPIA = 1.5 × 10-4, pGSEA = 1.0, phypergeometric = 3.3 × 10-4.

In summary, we compared the results obtained when using PathNet for pathway analysis vs. the results obtained with three existing widely used methods. We found that PathNet was able to: 1) identify the AD pathway as significant in cases where the existing methods failed; 2) detect significantly enriched pathways that are known to be biologically relevant to AD; and 3) detect a higher level of significance in overlap of the enriched pathways in two independent datasets that are expected to be comparable.

Estimation of false positive rates

We verified that PathNet’s identification of pathways was driven by the differential gene expression data - and not only from the inherent connectivity of the pathways themselves - by testing the performance of PathNet on randomized input data. In the severe stage of the disease progression data, we randomly shuffled the gene names 1,000 times and estimated the pFWER values for 130 pathways from PathNet. The randomization of gene names ensures that the direct evidences and number of differentially expressed genes in the shuffled data is the same as in the original data. The distribution of pFWER values given in Additional file6 show that false positive rates from PathNet were low because 95% of the pFWER values were equal to 1. The false positive rate of PathNet at a pFWER cutoff of 0.05 (used in our analysis) was 0.02. We further investigated if the difference in pathway topology contributes to variations of false positive rates among pathways. We calculated false positive rates for each pathway from 1,000 random shuffles and plotted the distribution of false positive rates for 130 pathways (Additional file7). The maximum false positive rate was 0.07, implying that none of the pathways have a significantly high probability of being identified as a false positive. Hence, we cannot consider PathNet’s results to be an artifact of the pathway definitions themselves.

Contextual association between pathways

In this study, we introduced the concept of a contextual association between pathways, i.e., pathway connections that are influenced by differential gene expression of neighboring genes rather than just the static overlap of genes in pathways (Figure2). Unlike the case of static overlap, these associations are specific to, and dependent on, the biological conditions of the particular study. These calculations identify pathway pairs where the differentially expressed genes linked to each other in the two pathways are present at a greater frequency than would be expected by chance alone.

We used PathNet to identify pathway associations in each of the two AD datasets described above. Because we are interested in analyzing datasets related to AD, we specifically analyzed pathways that have statistically significant contextual association with the AD pathway. We focused on six comparisons (moderate and severe samples in the disease progression dataset; and primary visual cortex, hippocampal field CA1, middle temporal gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex regions in the brain regions dataset), where PathNet identified the AD pathway as statistically enriched. The results from all comparisons are provided in Additional file8. Among the AD contextually associated pathways, Table3 lists the most frequently appearing pathways in these six comparisons (selected as occurring at least three times). We identified six pathways from this list that are related to neurological disorders in general and AD in particular: gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) signaling; neurotrophin signaling; long-term potentiation; Huntington’s disease; long-term depression; axon guidance; and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. GnRH regulates the release of luteinizing hormone, which is elevated in AD patients. The luteinizing hormone is known to be involved in the formation of beta amyloid (Aβ), which is a pathological hallmark of AD[46, 47], and the neurotrophin signaling pathway regulates the signaling of neurons[48]. In AD and other neurodegenerative conditions, neurotrophin receptors (NTRs), such as p7NTR, bind to Aβ and nerve growth factors to promote cell death[49]. However, only two of these six pathways (long-term potentiation and Huntington’s disease) were identified as co-enriched (in at least three out of six cases) in the pathway enrichment analysis (Table2).
Table 3

Contextual association of pathways

Frequency

Pathway name

(KEGG ID)

Overlap

References

   

(p-value)

 

5

Gap junction

(4540)

0.00

[50, 51]

5

GnRH signaling…

(4912)

0.00

[46, 47, 52]

5

Huntington’s…

(5016)

0.00

[30]

4

Adherens junction

(4520)

0.78

[26]

4

Axon guidance

(4360)

0.01

[31, 53]

4

Dorso-ventral

(4320)

0.24

NA

4

Insulin signaling

(4910)

0.03

[31]

4

Long-term depression

(4730)

0.00

[54, 55]

4

Long-term potentiation

(4720)

0.00

[31, 32]

4

Neurotrophin signal…

(4722)

0.01

[31, 48]

4

Oocyte meiosis

(4114)

0.00

NA

4

Pathways in cancer

(5200)

0.71

[3537]

4

Ubiquitin media…

(4120)

1.00

[56, 57]

Pathways that were contextually associated [p < 0.05 calculated from Eq. (6)] with the AD pathway from six comparisons (moderate and severe samples in the disease progression dataset; and primary visual cortex, hippocampal field CA1, middle temporal gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex regions in the brain regions dataset). For comparison purpose, the fourth column shows the p-value of overlapping genes of a pathway and the AD pathway based on hypergeometric test. The ‘References’ column in the table provides support for the association each of the pathways to AD. NA: not available.

If two pathways have significant overlap, i.e., they share a large number of genes, there is an increased chance that they will be associated with each other. However, contextual association is dependent not only on the extent of overlap, but also on the differential expression levels of genes that connect the two pathways. To investigate if the contextual association provided information beyond what could be expected by simply analyzing the shared genes between the corresponding pathway and the AD pathway, we calculated the p-value of the direct overlap of genes in each pathway with the AD pathway, using the hypergeometric test (Table3). A low p-value indicates that the pathway has a significantly high overlap with the AD pathway, and that the pathways are strongly associated with each other based on previous knowledge encoded in the pathway definitions themselves. Interestingly, in 31% of the cases we observed that pathways with limited overlap had significant contextual association with each other. For example, ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis is one of the pathways that do not share any genes with the AD pathway, and yet we found that, in four out of six comparisons, this pathway was contextually associated with the AD pathway (Table3, Column 4). We therefore investigated the relationship between the AD and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis pathways further. Figure5 shows that there are 112 edges connecting genes between these two pathways, which imply a possible association between them. However, because these edges connect genes from two non-overlapping pathways, we could not have identified this relationship if we had treated the pathways separately, or if we had used methods that relate pathways based solely on overlapping genes. It is well established that deregulation of ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis can lead to the formation of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) from hyper-phosphorylated tau protein[31, 56, 57]. NFTs are one of the pathological hallmarks of AD, and the number of NFTs increases with the progression of the disease[31]. However, this biologically relevant pathway is not statistically enriched from any of the four pathway analysis methods used here (Table1), suggesting that our contextual association between pathways can distil biological information that could not be obtained from enrichment analysis alone.
Figure 5

Connection between Alzheimer’s disease and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. Differential gene expression levels from the posterior cingulate cortex region were overlaid on the Alzheimer’s disease (yellow) and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis (blue) pathways. The region of the pathways that are directly and indirectly connected to each other is framed and also shown enlarged in the figure. The size of a node (representing a gene) represents the extent of differential gene expression between patients with the disease vs. controls. Although there are no common genes between these two pathways, 112 edges were observed that connected nodes (genes) between the two pathways (highlighted in red) based on inter-pathway connectivity derived from the pooled pathway. Several of these edges connect differentially expressed genes in these pathways, analogous to scenario (C) in Figure2.

In summary, the following observations were made: 1) enrichment analysis using PathNet performed better than the three existing pathway analysis methods in identifying biologically relevant pathways, 2) contextual pathway-pathway analysis can reveal biological insights that may not be obtained from enrichment analysis alone, and 3) the enrichment of pathways associated with AD changes with disease progression.

Conclusion

In this study, we developed PathNet, a method for pathway analysis based on high-throughput molecular profiling data, using inter- and intra-pathway connectivity information. PathNet calculates both pathway enrichment and contextual associations between pathways. We have shown that PathNet was able to identify the AD pathway and other biologically relevant pathways in multiple scenarios while three other widely used pathway analysis methods (hypergeometric test, GSEA, and SPIA) often failed to do so. PathNet also identified pathways contextually associated with the AD pathway. Literature studies support the biological relevance of the results identified using PathNet.

The existing methods used for pathway enrichment consider each pathway as a separate entity. In contrast, PathNet considers both inter-pathway and intra-pathway connectivity for pathway enrichment. This connectivity information, in the form of a significance-level weighted gene-gene connection, corroborates and strengthens the direct evidence of differential gene expression readily derived from microarray data when a gene’s neighbors on the pathway are also differentially expressed. The method properly accounts for highly connected genes that are part of multiple pathways via comparison with the appropriate probability density function generated from topology-preserving randomized data. The unbiased nature of this method was confirmed by the estimated low false positive rates. However, if no connectivity information is available for a gene, PathNet still includes the microarray-derived evidence for identifying pathway enrichment. This ensures that we do not penalize genes that have no information available regarding their connectivity.

In PathNet, indirect evidence of a gene is calculated based on gene expression levels of its neighbors using Eqs. (1–3). Hence, indirect evidence of the gene cannot be estimated if neighboring gene expression is not measured in the microarray analysis. In such cases, the combined evidence of a gene is replaced with the direct evidence. In the limiting case where none of the genes’ neighbors expression levels are measured, PathNet converges to a standard hypergeometric test.

Currently, there is no gold standard for quantitatively testing and comparing the performance of pathway enrichment methods. As an alternative, we have selected a well-studied disease (i.e., AD), where considerable amount of knowledge already exists about the deregulation of its biological processes and multiple high-quality microarray datasets are available, to examine important aspects of the disease. This allowed us to assess the performance of PathNet based on an in-depth analysis of the biological relevance of the results, directly compare its performance with other existing pathway enrichment methods, and ascertain each method’s ability to retrieve the relevant biological information.

Availability and requirements

Software name: PathNet

Download site: http://www.bhsai.org/downloads/pathnet/

Operating system: Platform independent

License: GPL version 3

Programming language: R version 2.14.1 or later

Abbreviations

Aβ: 

Beta amyloid

AD: 

Alzheimer’s disease

EC: 

Entorhinal cortex

GEO: 

Gene expression omnibus

GSEA: 

Gene set enrichment analysis

GnRH: 

Gonadotropin releasing hormone

GO: 

Gene Ontology

HIP: 

Hippocampal field CA1

KEGG: 

Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes

MTG: 

Middle temporal gyrus

NFTs: 

Neurofibrillary tangles

NTRs: 

Neurotrophin receptors

PC: 

Posterior cingulate cortex

PPI: 

Protein-protein interaction

SFG: 

Superior frontal gyrus

SPIA: 

Signaling pathway impact analysis

VCX: 

Primary visual cortex.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Military Operational Medicine Research Program of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Ft. Detrick, Maryland, as part of the U.S. Army's Network Science Initiative. The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the U.S. Army or the U.S. Department of Defense. This paper has been approved for public release with unlimited distribution.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
DoD Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

References

  1. Manoli T, Gretz N, Grone HJ, Kenzelmann M, Eils R, Brors B: Group testing for pathway analysis improves comparability of different microarray datasets. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22 (20): 2500-2506.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Goeman JJ, Buhlmann P: Analyzing gene expression data in terms of gene sets: methodological issues. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (8): 980-987.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Da Huang W, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA: Bioinformatics enrichment tools: paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37 (1): 1-13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Liu Q, Dinu I, Adewale AJ, Potter JD, Yasui Y: Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8: 431.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher L, Van Belle G: Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences. 1993, NewYork: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, et al: Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005, 102 (43): 15545-15550.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Draghici S, Khatri P, Tarca AL, Amin K, Done A, Voichita C, Georgescu C, Romero R: A systems biology approach for pathway level analysis. Genome Res. 2007, 17 (10): 1537-1545.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Tarca AL, Draghici S, Khatri P, Hassan SS, Mittal P, Kim JS, Kim CJ, Kusanovic JP, Romero R: A novel signaling pathway impact analysis. Bioinformatics. 2009, 25 (1): 75-82.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Thomas R, Gohlke JM, Stopper GF, Parham FM, Portier CJ: Choosing the right path: enhancement of biologically relevant sets of genes or proteins using pathway structure. Genome Biol. 2009, 10 (4): R44.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanehisa M, Araki M, Goto S, Hattori M, Hirakawa M, Itoh M, Katayama T, Kawashima S, Okuda S, Tokimatsu T, et al: KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36 (Database issue): D480-484.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Li Y, Agarwal P, Rajagopalan D: A global pathway crosstalk network. Bioinformatics. 2008, 24 (12): 1442-1447.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelder T, Eijssen L, Kleemann R, van Erk M, Kooistra T, Evelo C: Exploring pathway interactions in insulin resistant mouse liver. BMC Syst Biol. 2011, 5: 127.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu ZP, Wang Y, Zhang XS, Chen L: Identifying dysfunctional crosstalk of pathways in various regions of Alzheimer's disease brains. BMC Syst Biol. 2010, 4 (Suppl 2): S11.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G: Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98 (9): 5116-5121.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Draghici S, Kulaeva O, Hoff B, Petrov A, Shams S, Tainsky MA: Noise sampling method: an ANOVA approach allowing robust selection of differentially regulated genes measured by DNA microarrays. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19 (11): 1348-1359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher RA: Statistical methods for research workers. 1932, Edinburgh:Oliver and Boyd, 4.Google Scholar
  17. Littell R, Folks J: Asymptotic optimality of Fisher's method of combining independent tests. J Am Stat Assoc. 1971, 66 (336): 802-806.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Littell R, Folks J: Asymptotic optimality of Fisher's method of combining independent tests ii. J Am Stat Assoc. 1973, 68 (341): 193-194.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown M: A method for combining non-independent, one-sided tests of significance. Biometrics. 1975, 31 (4): 987-992.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Blalock EM, Geddes JW, Chen KC, Porter NM, Markesbery WR, Landfield PW: Incipient Alzheimer's disease: microarray correlation analyses reveal major transcriptional and tumor suppressor responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101 (7): 2173-2178.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Liang WS, Dunckley T, Beach TG, Grover A, Mastroeni D, Walker DG, Caselli RJ, Kukull WA, McKeel D, Morris JC, et al: Gene expression profiles in anatomically and functionally distinct regions of the normal aged human brain. Physiol Genomics. 2007, 28 (3): 311-322.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Armstrong RA: Visual field defects in Alzheimer's disease patients may reflect differential pathology in the primary visual cortex. Optom Vis Sci. 1996, 73 (11): 677-682.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Newberg A, Cotter A, Udeshi M, Brinkman F, Glosser G, Alavi A, Clark C: Brain metabolism in the cerebellum and visual cortex correlates with neuropsychological testing in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Nucl Med Commun. 2003, 24 (7): 785-790.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Honjo K, van Reekum R, Verhoeff NP: Alzheimer's disease and infection: do infectious agents contribute to progression of Alzheimer's disease?. Alzheimers Dement. 2009, 5 (4): 348-360.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Penzes P, Vanleeuwen JE: Impaired regulation of synaptic actin cytoskeleton in Alzheimer's disease. Brain Res Rev. 2011, 67 (1–2): 184-192.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Takeichi M, Abe K: Synaptic contact dynamics controlled by cadherin and catenins. Trends Cell Biol. 2005, 15 (4): 216-221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Grace EA, Busciglio J: Aberrant activation of focal adhesion proteins mediates fibrillar amyloid beta-induced neuronal dystrophy. J Neurosci. 2003, 23 (2): 493-502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Caltagarone J, Jing Z, Bowser R: Focal adhesions regulate Aβ signaling and cell death in Alzheimer's disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007, 1772 (4): 438-445.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sheng B, Song B, Zheng Z, Zhou F, Lu G, Zhao N, Zhang X, Gong Y: Abnormal cleavage of APP impairs its functions in cell adhesion and migration. Neurosci Lett. 2009, 450 (3): 327-331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Heindel WC, Salmon DP, Shults CW, Walicke PA, Butters N: Neuropsychological evidence for multiple implicit memory systems: a comparison of Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Parkinson's disease patients. J Neurosci. 1989, 9 (2): 582-587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Querfurth HW, LaFerla FM: Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med. 2010, 362 (4): 329-344.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Malenka RC, Malinow R: Alzheimer's disease: recollection of lost memories. Nature. 2011, 469 (7328): 44-45.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sagar HJ: Clinical similarities and differences between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm Suppl. 1987, 24: 87-99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurup P, Zhang Y, Xu J, Venkitaramani DV, Haroutunian V, Greengard P, Nairn AC, Lombroso PJ: Aβ-Mediated NMDA receptor endocytosis in alzheimer's disease involves ubiquitination of the tyrosine phosphatase STEP61. J Neurosci. 2010, 30 (17): 5948-5957.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Behrens MI, Lendon C, Roe CM: A common biological mechanism in cancer and Alzheimer's disease?. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2009, 6 (3): 196-204.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Bennett DA: Is there a link between cancer and Alzheimer disease?. Neurology. 2009, 75 (13): 1216-1217.Google Scholar
  37. Plun-Favreau H, Lewis PA, Hardy J, Martins LM, Wood NW: Cancer and neurodegeneration: between the devil and the deep blue sea. PLOS Genet. 2010, 6 (12): e1001257.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bellucci C, Lilli C, Baroni T, Parnetti L, Sorbi S, Emiliani C, Lumare E, Calabresi P, Balloni S, Bodo M: Differences in extracellular matrix production and basic fibroblast growth factor response in skin fibroblasts from sporadic and familial Alzheimer's disease. Mol Med. 2007, 13 (9–10): 542-550.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gondi CS, Dinh DH, Klopfenstein JD, Gujrati M, Rao JS: MMP-2 downregulation mediates differential regulation of cell death via ErbB-2 in glioma xenografts. Int J Oncol. 2009, 35 (2): 257-263.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lehrer S: Glioblastoma and dementia may share a common cause. Med Hypotheses. 2010, 75 (1): 67-68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhu X, Lee HG, Raina AK, Perry G, Smith MA: The role of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways in Alzheimer's disease. Neurosignals. 2002, 11 (5): 270-281.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Chiang HC, Wang L, Xie Z, Yau A, Zhong Y: PI3 kinase signaling is involved in Aβ-induced memory loss in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010, 107 (15): 7060-7065.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mercado-Gomez O, Hernandez-Fonseca K, Villavicencio-Queijeiro A, Massieu L, Chimal-Monroy J, Arias C: Inhibition of Wnt and PI3K signaling modulates GSK-3beta activity and induces morphological changes in cortical neurons: role of tau phosphorylation. Neurochem Res. 2008, 33 (8): 1599-1609.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Oddo S: The ubiquitin-proteasome system in Alzheimer's disease. J Cell Mol Med. 2008, 12 (2): 363-373.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Upadhya SC, Hegde AN: Role of the ubiquitin proteasome system in Alzheimer's disease. BMC Biochem. 2007, 8 (Suppl 1): S12.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Casadesus G, Webber KM, Atwood CS, Pappolla MA, Perry G, Bowen RL, Smith MA: Luteinizing hormone modulates cognition and amyloid-β deposition in Alzheimer APP transgenic mice. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006, 1762 (4): 447-452.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Meethal SV, Smith MA, Bowen RL, Atwood CS: The gonadotropin connection in Alzheimer's disease. Endocrine. 2005, 26 (3): 317-326.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chao MV, Rajagopal R, Lee FS: Neurotrophin signalling in health and disease. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006, 110 (2): 167-173.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Coulson EJ: Does the p75 neurotrophin receptor mediate Aβ-induced toxicity in Alzheimer's disease?. J Neurochem. 2006, 98 (3): 654-660.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Cruz NF, Ball KK, Dienel GA: Astrocytic gap junctional communication is reduced in amyloid-β-treated cultured astrocytes, but not in Alzheimer's disease transgenic mice. ASN Neuro. 2010, 2 (4): 201-213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Mei X, Ezan P, Giaume C, Koulakoff A: Astroglial connexin immunoreactivity is specifically altered at β-amyloid plaques in beta-amyloid precursor protein/presenilin1 mice. Neuroscience. 2010, 171 (1): 92-105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Webber KM, Casadesus G, Bowen RL, Perry G, Smith MA: Evidence for the role of luteinizing hormone in Alzheimer disease. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2007, 7 (4): 300-303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Bai G, Chivatakarn O, Bonanomi D, Lettieri K, Franco L, Xia C, Stein E, Ma L, Lewcock JW, Pfaff SL: Presenilin-dependent receptor processing is required for axon guidance. Cell. 2011, 144 (1): 106-118.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Li S, Hong S, Shepardson NE, Walsh DM, Shankar GM, Selkoe D: Soluble oligomers of amyloid β protein facilitate hippocampal long-term depression by disrupting neuronal glutamate uptake. Neuron. 2009, 62 (6): 788-801.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Shankar GM, Li S, Mehta TH, Garcia-Munoz A, Shepardson NE, Smith I, Brett FM, Farrell MA, Rowan MJ, Lemere CA, et al: Amyloid-β protein dimers isolated directly from Alzheimer's brains impair synaptic plasticity and memory. Nat Med. 2008, 14 (8): 837-842.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Layfield R, Cavey JR, Lowe J: Role of ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders. Ageing Res Rev. 2003, 2 (4): 343-356.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lopez Salon M, Morelli L, Castano EM, Soto EF, Pasquini JM: Defective ubiquitination of cerebral proteins in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurosci Res. 2000, 62 (2): 302-310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Dutta et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement