SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Modeling the Attractor Landscape of Disease Progression: a Network-Based Approach.

Front Genet · 2017-04-18

DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2017.00048PMID: 28458684

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Genome-wide regulatory networks enable cells to function, develop, and survive. Perturbation of these networks can lead to appearance of a disease phenotype. Inspired by Conrad Waddington's epigenetic landscape of cell development, we use a Hopfield network formalism to construct an attractor landscape model of disease progression based on protein- or gene-correlation networks of Parkinson's disease, glioma, and colorectal cancer. Attractors in this landscape correspond to normal and disease states of the cell. We introduce approaches to estimate the size and robustness of these attractors, and take a network-based approach to study their biological features such as the key genes and their functions associated with the attractors. Our results show that the attractor of cancer cells is wider than the attractor of normal cells, suggesting a heterogeneous nature of cancer. Perturbation analysis shows that robustness depends on characteristics of the input data (number of samples per time-point, and the fraction which converge to an attractor). We identify unique gene interactions at each stage, which reflect the temporal rewiring of the gene regulatory network (GRN) with disease progression. Our model of the attractor landscape, constructed from large-scale gene expression profiles of individual patients, captures snapshots of disease progression and identifies gene interactions specific to different stages, opening the way for development of stage-specific therapeutic strategies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.