Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages e3 (March 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comprehensive Analysis of Tissue-wide Gene Expression and Phenotype Data Reveals Tissues Affected in Rare Genetic Disorders  Ariel Feiglin, Bryce K. Allen,
Advertisements

Xiaoshu Chen, Jianzhi Zhang  Cell Systems 
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
M. Fu, G. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Yu, F. Meng 
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages (January 2016)
The Functional Impact of Alternative Splicing in Cancer
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages e5 (April 2017)
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages e6 (July 2017)
A Single-Cell Transcriptome Atlas of the Human Pancreas
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages e5 (May 2018)
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (February 2017)
Discovery and Characterization of piRNAs in the Human Fetal Ovary
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages e7 (July 2018)
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages e6 (July 2017)
Translation of Genotype to Phenotype by a Hierarchy of Cell Subsystems
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
A Call for Systematic Research on Solute Carriers
Understanding Tissue-Specific Gene Regulation
Adrien Le Thomas, Georgi K. Marinov, Alexei A. Aravin  Cell Reports 
The Translational Landscape of the Mammalian Cell Cycle
Anastasia Baryshnikova  Cell Systems 
Gene-Expression Variation Within and Among Human Populations
The Functional Impact of Alternative Splicing in Cancer
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (July 2016)
Mapping Global Histone Acetylation Patterns to Gene Expression
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (July 2018)
Jianing Yu, David Ferster  Neuron 
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages (March 2015)
Transcriptional Profiling of Quiescent Muscle Stem Cells In Vivo
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
Malika Kumar Freund, Kathryn S
Rosanna P. Sammons, Claudia Clopath, Samuel J. Barnes  Cell Reports 
Xin Li, Alexis Battle, Konrad J. Karczewski, Zach Zappala, David A
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages e5 (September 2018)
An RpaA-Dependent Sigma Factor Cascade Sets the Timing of Circadian Transcriptional Rhythms in Synechococcus elongatus  Kathleen E. Fleming, Erin K. O’Shea 
Michal Levin, Tamar Hashimshony, Florian Wagner, Itai Yanai 
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Volume 67, Issue 6, Pages e6 (September 2017)
Alon Poleg-Polsky, Huayu Ding, Jeffrey S. Diamond  Cell Reports 
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages (November 2014)
Epigenomic Profiling Reveals DNA-Methylation Changes Associated with Major Psychosis  Jonathan Mill, Thomas Tang, Zachary Kaminsky, Tarang Khare, Simin.
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages (January 2016)
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 132, Issue 6, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Alterations in mRNA 3′ UTR Isoform Abundance Accompany Gene Expression Changes in Human Huntington’s Disease Brains  Lindsay Romo, Ami Ashar-Patel, Edith.
Comprehensive Analysis of Tissue-wide Gene Expression and Phenotype Data Reveals Tissues Affected in Rare Genetic Disorders  Ariel Feiglin, Bryce K. Allen,
Varying Intolerance of Gene Pathways to Mutational Classes Explain Genetic Convergence across Neuropsychiatric Disorders  Shahar Shohat, Eyal Ben-David,
Predicting Gene Expression from Sequence
Volume 122, Issue 6, Pages (September 2005)
R.H. Brophy, B. Zhang, L. Cai, R.W. Wright, L.J. Sandell, M.F. Rai 
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages (February 2015)
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages e6 (April 2018)
Gene Density, Transcription, and Insulators Contribute to the Partition of the Drosophila Genome into Physical Domains  Chunhui Hou, Li Li, Zhaohui S.
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Network-Based Coverage of Mutational Profiles Reveals Cancer Genes
Genetic and Epigenetic Regulation of Human lincRNA Gene Expression
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages e3 (February 2019)
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages e3 (December 2018)
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages e4 (February 2017)
Xiaoshu Chen, Jianzhi Zhang  Cell Systems 
Fig. 4 Identification of C
Wenzhe Ma, Chao Tang, Luhua Lai  Biophysical Journal 
Comparing 3D Genome Organization in Multiple Species Using Phylo-HMRF
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages e7 (July 2019)
Volume 3, Issue 6, Pages e3 (December 2016)
Fig. 3 Gene expression analysis in 48-plex drug treatment experiments.
Presentation transcript:

Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 357-364.e3 (March 2017) Chromosome-wise Protein Interaction Patterns and Their Impact on Functional Implications of Large-Scale Genomic Aberrations  Isa Kristina Kirk, Nils Weinhold, Kirstine Belling, Niels Erik Skakkebæk, Thomas Skøt Jensen, Henrik Leffers, Anders Juul, Søren Brunak  Cell Systems  Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 357-364.e3 (March 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.001 Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Cell Systems 2017 4, 357-364.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.001) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Patterns of Protein Interaction across Human Chromosomes (A) Protein interactions between proteins encoded by different chromosomes. The heatmap visualizes pairwise similarities between all human chromosomes. Chromosomes were clustered based on normalized counts of cis- and trans-chromosomal protein interactions. Colors represent relative frequencies of protein interactions between pairs of chromosomes, ranging from light yellow (low) to dark red (high). Two main groups of chromosomes were identified using hierarchical clustering. Chromosome 21 was part of a small cluster of chromosomes with few cis- and trans-chromosomal interactions (together with chromosomes X, 4, and 13). Chromosome 21 had particularly few cis-chromosomal interactions compared with other chromosomes. (B) Robustness analysis of chromosome-wise interactions using three protein interactome sets with different confidence score thresholds. The ratio of normalized cis- to trans-chromosomal protein interactions (connectivity ratio) was calculated for each chromosome using the three different subsets of protein interactions. Connectivity ratios for the three subsets are represented as horizontal bars for each chromosome. Cell Systems 2017 4, 357-364.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.001) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Activity of Proteins in Down Syndrome (A) Correlation of gene expression between a hub protein and its interactors. Points represent protein hubs according to the average correlation (AvgPCC) calculated for DS patients (y axis) and controls (x axis). Correlated hubs (the 5% most correlated with an AvgPCC > 2 SD from mean) were considered active and were divided into three groups: gained in DS patients (green), lost in DS (red), and constitutively active (blue). Hubs encoded by genes on chromosome 21 are marked in orange. Hubs with AvgPCC not significantly different (<2 SD) from the mean in DS patients as well as controls were considered not active in brain tissue. (B) Chromosome-wise enrichment analysis of active hubs. The asterisks (∗) mark the chromosomes significantly enriched in the groups: gained in DS (chromosome 9 and 21) and lost in DS (chromosome 4 and 13). (C) Hubs gained in DS identified in two or more gene expression datasets. (D and E) Hubs OLIG2 and c21orf91 and interacting proteins. Node colors represent logFC between DS patients and controls (green, higher expression in DS; red, higher expression in controls). Larger nodes indicate whether there is a significant difference in logFC between DS patients and controls. Edge colors represent the pairwise correlation between hub and interactor in DS patients (green, positive correlation; red, negative correlation; gray, no correlation). Cell Systems 2017 4, 357-364.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.001) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Distribution of Phenotypes Among Active Proteins (A) Phenotypes were ordered based on enrichment for hubs encoded by genes on chromosome 21 in all four types: gained in DS, lost in DS, constitutively active, or uncorrelated. A hypergeometric test was performed to identify phenotypes significantly enriched for hubs encoded by genes on chromosome 21. The nervous system and vision/eye were significantly enriched for hubs gained in DS, while the renal/urinary system was enriched for hubs lost in DS. Significantly enriched categories are marked with an asterisk (∗). (B) Hubs that were gained or lost in DS and significantly associated phenotypes are highlighted in green (gained in DS) and red (lost in DS). Hubs encoded by genes on chromosome 21 that were not associated with any MGI phenotype are not shown. Cell Systems 2017 4, 357-364.e3DOI: (10.1016/j.cels.2017.01.001) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions