Stochastic dynamic modeling of short gene expression time-series data

Copyright [2008] IEEE. This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Such permission of the IEEE does not in any way imply IEEE endorsement of any of Brunel University's products or services. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE by writing to [email protected]. By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of the copyright laws protecting it.In this paper, the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm is applied for modeling the gene regulatory network from gene time-series data. The gene regulatory network is viewed as a stochastic dynamic model, which consists of the noisy gene measurement from microarray and the gene regulation first-order autoregressive (AR) stochastic dynamic process. By using the EM algorithm, both the model parameters and the actual values of the gene expression levels can be identified simultaneously. Moreover, the algorithm can deal with the sparse parameter identification and the noisy data in an efficient way. It is also shown that the EM algorithm can handle the microarray gene expression data with large number of variables but a small number of observations. The gene expression stochastic dynamic models for four real-world gene expression data sets are constructed to demonstrate the advantages of the introduced algorithm. Several indices are proposed to evaluate the models of inferred gene regulatory networks, and the relevant biological properties are discussed

Network Plasticity as Bayesian Inference

General results from statistical learning theory suggest to understand not only brain computations, but also brain plasticity as probabilistic inference. But a model for that has been missing. We propose that inherently stochastic features of synaptic plasticity and spine motility enable cortical networks of neurons to carry out probabilistic inference by sampling from a posterior distribution of network configurations. This model provides a viable alternative to existing models that propose convergence of parameters to maximum likelihood values. It explains how priors on weight distributions and connection probabilities can be merged optimally with learned experience, how cortical networks can generalize learned information so well to novel experiences, and how they can compensate continuously for unforeseen disturbances of the network. The resulting new theory of network plasticity explains from a functional perspective a number of experimental data on stochastic aspects of synaptic plasticity that previously appeared to be quite puzzling.Comment: 33 pages, 5 figures, the supplement is available on the author's web page http://www.igi.tugraz.at/kappe

Dissecting high-dimensional phenotypes with bayesian sparse factor analysis of genetic covariance matrices.

Quantitative genetic studies that model complex, multivariate phenotypes are important for both evolutionary prediction and artificial selection. For example, changes in gene expression can provide insight into developmental and physiological mechanisms that link genotype and phenotype. However, classical analytical techniques are poorly suited to quantitative genetic studies of gene expression where the number of traits assayed per individual can reach many thousand. Here, we derive a Bayesian genetic sparse factor model for estimating the genetic covariance matrix (G-matrix) of high-dimensional traits, such as gene expression, in a mixed-effects model. The key idea of our model is that we need consider only G-matrices that are biologically plausible. An organism's entire phenotype is the result of processes that are modular and have limited complexity. This implies that the G-matrix will be highly structured. In particular, we assume that a limited number of intermediate traits (or factors, e.g., variations in development or physiology) control the variation in the high-dimensional phenotype, and that each of these intermediate traits is sparse - affecting only a few observed traits. The advantages of this approach are twofold. First, sparse factors are interpretable and provide biological insight into mechanisms underlying the genetic architecture. Second, enforcing sparsity helps prevent sampling errors from swamping out the true signal in high-dimensional data. We demonstrate the advantages of our model on simulated data and in an analysis of a published Drosophila melanogaster gene expression data set

Untangling perceptual memory: hysteresis and adaptation map into separate cortical networks

Perception is an active inferential process in which prior knowledge is combined with sensory input, the result of which determines the contents of awareness. Accordingly, previous experience is known to help the brain “decide” what to perceive. However, a critical aspect that has not been addressed is that previous experience can exert 2 opposing effects on perception: An attractive effect, sensitizing the brain to perceive the same again (hysteresis), or a repulsive effect, making it more likely to perceive something else (adaptation). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and modeling to elucidate how the brain entertains these 2 opposing processes, and what determines the direction of such experience-dependent perceptual effects. We found that although affecting our perception concurrently, hysteresis and adaptation map into distinct cortical networks: a widespread network of higher-order visual and fronto-parietal areas was involved in perceptual stabilization, while adaptation was confined to early visual areas. This areal and hierarchical segregation may explain how the brain maintains the balance between exploiting redundancies and staying sensitive to new information. We provide a Bayesian model that accounts for the coexistence of hysteresis and adaptation by separating their causes into 2 distinct terms: Hysteresis alters the prior, whereas adaptation changes the sensory evidence (the likelihood function)