Integration of flow studies for robust selection of mechanoresponsive genes

Summary

Blood flow is an essential contributor to plaque growth, composition and initiation. It is sensed by endothelial cells, which react to blood flow by expressing > 1000 genes. The sheer number of genes implies that one needs genomic techniques to unravel their response in disease. Individual genomic studies have been performed but lack sufficient power to identify subtle changes in gene expression. In this study, we investigated whether a systematic meta-analysis of available microarray studies can improve their consistency. We identified 17 studies using microarrays, of which six were performed in vivo and 11 in vitro. The in vivo studies were disregarded due to the lack of the shear profile. Of the in vitro studies, a cross-platform integration of human studies (HUVECs in flow cells) showed high concordance (> 90 %). The human data set identified > 1600 genes to be shear responsive, more than any other study and in this gene set all known mechanosensitive genes and pathways were present. A detailed network analysis indicated a power distribution (e. g. the presence of hubs), without a hierarchical organisation. The average cluster coefficient was high and further analysis indicated an aggregation of 3 and 4 element motifs, indicating a high prevalence of feedback and feed forward loops, similar to prokaryotic cells. In conclusion, this initial study presented a novel method to integrate human-based mechanosensitive studies to increase its power. The robust network was large, contained all known mechanosensitive pathways and its structure revealed hubs, and a large aggregate of feedback and feed forward loops.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Keywords

Bioinformatics - network biology - network structure - mechanobiology - microarrays - human

• References

• 1 Pedrigi RM. et al. Inducing Persistent Flow Disturbances Accelerates Athero-genesis and Promotes Thin Cap Fibroatheroma Development in D374Y-PCSK9 Hypercholesterolemic Minipigs. Circulation. 2015 Epub ahead of print.
• 2 Frueh J. et al. Systems biology of the functional and dysfunctional endothelium. Cardiovasc Res 2013; 99: 334-341.
• 3 Segers D. et al. Atherosclerotic Plaque Stability Is Affected by the Chemokine CXCL10 in Both Mice and Humans. Int J Inflam 2011; 2011: 936109.
• 4 Ein-Dor L. et al. Thousands of samples are needed to generate a robust gene list for predicting outcome in cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 5923-5928.
• 5 van Vliet MH. et al. Pooling breast cancer datasets has a synergetic effect on classification performance and improves signature stability. BMC Genomics 2008; 9: 375.
• 6 Xu L. et al. Merging microarray data from separate breast cancer studies provides a robust prognostic test. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 125.
• 7 Belcastro V. et al. Transcriptional gene network inference from a massive dataset elucidates transcriptome organisation and gene function. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39: 8677-8688.
• 8 Lukk M. et al. A global map of human gene expression. Nature 2010; 28: 322-324.
• 9 Schmid PR. et al. Making sense out of massive data by going beyond differential expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 5594-5599.
• 10 Edgar R. et al. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridisation array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: 207-210.
• 11 Brazma A. ArrayExpress--a public repository for microarray gene expression data at the EBI. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31: 68-71.
• 12 Irizarry RA. et al. Comparison of Affymetrix GeneChip expression measures. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: 789-794.
• 13 Gautier L. et al. affy--analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 2004; 20: 307-315.
• 14 Bolstad BM. et al. A comparison of normalisation methods for high density oli-gonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 2003; 19: 185-193.
• 15 Irizarry RA. et al. Exploration, normalisation, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 2003; 4: 249-264.
• 16 McCall MN, Almudevar A. Affymetrix GeneChip microarray preprocessing for multivariate analyses. Briefings in Bioinformatics 2012; 13: 536-546.
• 17 Lim WK. et al. Comparative analysis of microarray normalisation procedures: effects on reverse engineering gene networks. Bioinformatics 2007; 23: i282-i8.
• 18 Shippy R. et al. Using RNA sample titrations to assess microarray platform performance and normalisation techniques. Nature Biotechnol 2006; 24: 1123-1131.
• 19 Rudy J, Valafar F. Empirical comparison of cross-platform normalisation methods for gene expression data. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 467.
• 20 Sirbu A. et al. Cross-Platform Microarray Data Normalisation for Regulatory Network Inference. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: e13822.
• 21 Turnbull AK. et al. Direct integration of intensity-level data from Affymetrix and Illumina microarrays improves statistical power for robust reanalysis. BMC Medical Genomics 2012; 5: 1.
• 22 Dunning MJ. et al. Statistical issues in the analysis of Illumina data. BMC Bioin-formatics 2008; 9: 85.
• 23 Schmid R. et al. Comparison of normalisation methods for Illumina BeadChip HumanHT-12 v3. BMC Genomics 2010; 11: 349.
• 24 Ritchie ME. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-se-quencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43: e47-e.
• 25 Ritchie ME. et al. A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays. Bioinformatics 2007; 23: 2700-2707.
• 26 Zhu Q. et al. A wholly defined Agilent microarray spike-in dataset. Bioin-formatics 2011; 27: 1284-1289.
• 27 Allen JD. et al. Probe mapping across multiple microarray platforms. Briefings in Bioinformatics 2012; 13: 547-554.
• 28 Johnson WE, Li C. Adjusting batch effects in microarray experiments with small sample size using Empirical Bayes methods. Batch Effects and Noise in Microarray Experiments: Sources and Solutions:. 113-129.
• 29 Johnson WE. et al. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 2006; 8: 118-127.
• 30 Leek JT. et al. The sva package for removing batch effects and other unwanted variation in high-throughput experiments. Bioinformatics 2012; 28: 882-883.
• 31 Lazar C. et al. Batch effect removal methods for microarray gene expression data integration: a survey. Brief Bioinformat 2013; 14: 469-490.
• 32 Chen C. et al. Removing Batch Effects in Analysis of Expression Microarray Data: An Evaluation of Six Batch Adjustment Methods. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e17238.
• 33 Taminau J. et al. Comparison of Merging and Meta-Analysis as Alternative Approaches for Integrative Gene Expression Analysis. ISRN Bioinformatics 2014; 2014: 1-7.
• 34 Kitchen RR. et al. Correcting for intra-experiment variation in Illumina Bead-Chip data is necessary to generate robust gene-expression profiles. BMC Ge-nomics 2010; 11: 134.
• 35 Larsen MJ. et al. Microarray-Based RNA Profiling of Breast Cancer: Batch Effect Removal Improves Cross-Platform Consistency. BioMed Res Internat 2014; 2014: 1-11.
• 36 Kauffmann A. et al. arrayQualityMetrics-- a bioconductor package for quality assessment of microarray data. Bioinformatics 2009; 25: 415-416.
• 37 Li J. et al. Principal variance components analysis: Estimating batch effects in microarray gene expression data. Batch Effects and Noise in Microarray Experiments: Sources Solutions 2009; 141-154.
• 38 Smyth GK. Limma: linear models for microarray data. Springer 2005; 397-420.
• 39 Zhang J. et al. In vivo differences between endothelial transcriptional profiles of coronary and iliac arteries revealed by microarray analysis. AJP Heart Circ Phy-siol 2008; 295: H1556-H1561.
• 40 Ni CW. et al. MicroRNA-663 upregulated by oscillatory shear stress plays a role in inflammatory response of endothelial cells. AJP: Heart Circ Physiol 2011; 300: H1762-H1769.
• 41 Boon RA. et al. KLF2 Suppresses TGF-beta Signalling in Endothelium Through Induction of Smad7 and Inhibition of AP-1. Arterioscl Thromb Vasc Biol 2007; 27: 532-539.
• 42 Boon RA. et al. Key transcriptional regulators of the vasoprotective effects of shear stress. Hämostaseologie 2009; 29: 39-43.
• 43 Fledderus JO. et al. KLF2 Primes the Antioxidant Transcription Factor Nrf2 for Activation in Endothelial Cells. Arterioscl Thromb Vasc Biol 2008; 28: 1339-1346.
• 44 Heo K-S. et al. Disturbed-Flow-Mediated Vascular Reactive Oxygen Species Induce Endothelial Dysfunction. Circulation J 2011; 75: 2722-2730.
• 45 Clark PR. et al. MEK5 is Activated by Shear Stress, Activates ERK5 and Induces KLF4 to Modulate TNF Responses in Human Dermal Microvascular Endothe-lial Cells. Microcirculation 2011; 18: 102-117.
• 46 García-Cardeña G. et al. Biomechanical activation of vascular endothelium as a determinant of its functional phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 4478-4485.
• 47 McCormick SM. et al. DNA microarray reveals changes in gene expression of shear stressed human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 8955-8960.
• 48 Wang W. et al. Fluid shear stress stimulates phosphorylation-dependent nuclear export of HDAC5 and mediates expression of KLF2 and eNOS. Blood 2010; 115: 2971-2979.
• 49 Wragg JW. et al. Shear stress regulated gene expression and angiogenesis in vascular endothelium. Microcirculation 2014; 21: 290-300.
• 50 Kolarova H. et al. Modulation of endothelial glycocalyx structure under inflammatory conditions. Mediators Inflam 2014; 2014: 694312.
• 51 Fedorchak GR. et al. Cellular mechanosensing: Getting to the nucleus of it all. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2014; 115: 76-92.
• 52 Shukla HD. et al. Integrated proteo-genomic approach for early diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. Cancer Lett 2015; 369: 28-36.
• 53 Yano M. et al. RNA-binding protein research with transcriptome-wide technologies in neural development. Cell Tissue Res 2015; 359: 135-144.
• 54 Goldman D, Domschke K. Making sense of deep sequencing. Int J Neuropsy-chopharmacol 2014; 17: 1717-1725.
• 55 Ernst CW, Steibel JP. Molecular advances in QTL discovery and application in pig breeding. Trends Genet 2013; 29: 215-224.
• 56 Frueh J. et al. Systems biology of the functional and dysfunctional endothelium. Cardiovasc Res 2013; 99: 334-341.
• 57 Frueh J. et al. Systems and synthetic biology of the vessel wall. FEBS Lett 2012; 586: 2164-2170.
• 58 Zhao W. et al. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis: state of the art. J Biopharm Stat 2010; 20: 281-300.
• 59 Shannon PT. et al. RCytoscape: tools for exploratory network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14: 217.
• 60 Hammann F, Drewe J. Data mining for potential adverse drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2014; 10: 665-671.
• 61 Uhart M, Bustos DM. Protein intrinsic disorder and network connectivity. The case of 14–3–3 proteins. Front Genet 2014; 5: 10.
• 62 Sporns O. The human connectome: origins and challenges. Neuroimage 2013; 80: 53-61.