A comparative study of robustness measures for cancer signaling networks

  • Published: 01 January 2017
  • Primary: 37F20, 68U05; Secondary: 65Y20

  • Network robustness stands for the capability of networks in resisting failures or attacks. Many robustness measures have been proposed to evaluate the robustness of various types of networks, such as small-world and scale-free networks. However, the robustness of biological networks is different for their special structures related to the unique functionality. Cancer signaling networks which show the information transformation of cancers in molecular level always appear with robust complex structures which mean information exchange in the networks do not depend on skimp pathways in which resulting the low rate of cure, high rate of recurrence and especially, the short time in survivability caused by constantly destruction of cancer. So a network metric that shows significant changes when one node is removed, and further to correlate that metric with survival probabilities for patients who underwent cancer chemotherapy is meaningful. Therefore, in this paper, the relationship between 14 typical cancer signaling networks robustness and those cancers patient survivability are studied. Several widely used robustness measures are included, and we find that the natural connectivity, in which the redundant circles are satisfied with the need of information exchange of cancer signaling networks, is negatively correlated to cancer patient survivability. Furthermore, the top three affected nodes measured by natural connectivity are obtained and the analysis on these nodes degree, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality are followed. The result shows that the node found are important so we believe that natural connectivity will be a great help to cancer treatment.

    Citation: Mingxing Zhou, Jing Liu, Shuai Wang, Shan He. A comparative study of robustness measures for cancer signaling networks[J]. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 87-96. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017011

    Related Papers:

  • Network robustness stands for the capability of networks in resisting failures or attacks. Many robustness measures have been proposed to evaluate the robustness of various types of networks, such as small-world and scale-free networks. However, the robustness of biological networks is different for their special structures related to the unique functionality. Cancer signaling networks which show the information transformation of cancers in molecular level always appear with robust complex structures which mean information exchange in the networks do not depend on skimp pathways in which resulting the low rate of cure, high rate of recurrence and especially, the short time in survivability caused by constantly destruction of cancer. So a network metric that shows significant changes when one node is removed, and further to correlate that metric with survival probabilities for patients who underwent cancer chemotherapy is meaningful. Therefore, in this paper, the relationship between 14 typical cancer signaling networks robustness and those cancers patient survivability are studied. Several widely used robustness measures are included, and we find that the natural connectivity, in which the redundant circles are satisfied with the need of information exchange of cancer signaling networks, is negatively correlated to cancer patient survivability. Furthermore, the top three affected nodes measured by natural connectivity are obtained and the analysis on these nodes degree, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality are followed. The result shows that the node found are important so we believe that natural connectivity will be a great help to cancer treatment.



    加载中
    [1] Albert R., Jeong H., Barabási A. -L. (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406: 378-382. doi: 10.1038/35019019
    [2] Andrec M., Kholodenko B. N., Levy R. M., Sontag E. (2005) Inference of signalingand gene regulatory networks by steady-state perturbation experiments: Structure and accuracy. Journal of Theoretical Biology 232: 427-441. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.08.022
    [3] D. Bauer, F. Boesch, C. Suffel and R. Tindell, Connectivity extremal problems and the design of reliable probabilistic networks, The Theory and Application of Graphs, Wiley, New York, (1981), 45–54.

    MR634515

    [4] Bonacich P. (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks 29: 555-564. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.002
    [5] Brandes U. (2008) On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Social Networks 30: 136-145.
    [6] Breitkreutz D., Hlatky L., Rietman E., Tuszynski J. A. (2012) Molecular signalingnetwork complexity is correlated with cancer patient survivability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 9209-9212.
    [7] Callaway D. S., Newman M. E. J., Strogatz S. H., Watts D. J. (2000) Network robustness and fragility: Percolation on random graphs. Physical Review L 85: 5468-5471. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5468
    [8] Cohen R., Erez K., Ben-Avraham D., Havlin S. (2000) Resilience of the Internet to random breakdowns. Physical Review L 85: 4626-4628. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4626
    [9] Cohen R., Erez K., Ben-Avraham D., Havlin S. (2001) Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack. Physical Review L 86: 3682-3685. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3682
    [10] Dong C., Hemminki K. (2001) Multiple primary cancers of the colon, breast and skin (melanoma) as models for polygenic cancers. International Journal of Cancer 92: 883-887. doi: 10.1002/ijc.1261
    [11] Edelman E. J., Guinney J., Chi J.-T., Febbo P. G., Mukherjee S. (2008) Modeling cancer progression via pathway dependencies. PLoS Comput Biol 4: e28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0040028
    [12] Estrada E., Higham D. J., Hatano N. (2009) Communicability betweenness in 315 complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 388: 764-774.
    [13] Feala J. D., Cortes J., Duxbury P. M., Piermarocchi C., McCulloch A. D., Paternostro G. (2010) Systems approaches and algorithms for discovery of combinatorial therapies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine 2: 181-193. doi: 10.1002/wsbm.51
    [14] Fiedler M. (1973) Algebraic connectivity of graphs. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal 23: 298-305.
    [15] Frank H., Frisch I. T. (1970) Analysis and design of survivable networks. IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology 18: 501-519.
    [16] Hage P., Harary F. (1995) Eccentricity and centrality in networks. Social Networks 17: 57-63. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(94)00248-9
    [17] Harary F. (1983) Conditional connectivity. Networks 13: 347-357. doi: 10.1002/net.3230130303
    [18] Louzada V. H., Daolio F., Herrmann H. J., Tomassini M. (2015) Generating robust and efficient networks under targeted attacks. Propagation Phenomena in Real World Networks 85: 215-244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15916-4_9
    [19] Merris R. (1994) Laplacian matrices of graphs: A survey. Linear Algebra and its Applications 197: 143-176. doi: 10.1016/0024-3795(94)90486-3
    [20] Nacher J. C., Schwartz J.-M. (2008) A global view of drug-therapy interactions. BMC pharmacology 8: 5pp. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-8-5
    [21] Paul G., Sreenivasan S., Stanley H. E. (2005) Resilience of complex networks to random breakdown. Physical Review E 72: 056130, 6pp. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.72.056130
    [22] Penfold C. A., Buchanan-Wollaston V., Denby K. J., Wild D. L. (2012) Nonparametric bayesian inference for perturbed and orthologous gene regulatory networks. Bioinformatics 28: i233-i241. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts222
    [23] Schneider C. M., Moreira A. A., Andrade J. S., Havlin S., Herrmann H. J. (2011) Mitigation of malicious attacks on networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108: 3838-3841. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1009440108
    [24] Shargel B., Sayama H., Epstein I. R., Bar-Yam Y. (2003) Optimization of robustness and connectivity in complex networks. Physical Review L 90: 068701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.068701
    [25] Sonnenschein C., Soto A. M. (2008) Theories of carcinogenesis: an emerging per-275 spective, in: Seminars in cancer biology. Seminars in Cancer Biology 18: 372-377.
    [26] Takemoto K., Kihara K. (2013) Modular organization of cancer signaling networks is associated with patient survivability. Biosystems 113: 149-154. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.06.003
    [27] Wu J., Barahona M., Tan Y.-J., Deng H.-Z. (2015) Spectral measure of structural robustness in complex networks. IEEE Transactions on Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. and Humans 41: 1244-1252. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2116117
    [28] Yildirim M. A., Goh K.-I., Cusick M. E., Barabási A.-L., Vidal M. (2007) Drug-target network. Nature Biotechnology 25: 1119-1126.
    [29] Zeng A., Liu W. (2012) Enhancing network robustness against malicious attacks. Physical Review E 85: 066130. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.85.066130
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(924) PDF downloads(561) Cited by(0)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog