 Methodology article
 Open Access
 Published:
The extended TILAR approach: a novel tool for dynamic modeling of the transcription factor network regulating the adaption to in vitro cultivation of murine hepatocytes
BMC Systems Biology volume 6, Article number: 147 (2012)
Abstract
Background
Network inference is an important tool to reveal the underlying interactions of biological systems. In the liver, a complex system of transcription factors is active to distribute signals and induce the cellular response following extracellular stimuli. Plenty of information is available about single transcription factors important for the different functions of the liver, but little is known about their causal relations to each other.
Results
Given a DNA microarray time series dataset of collagen monolayers cultured murine hepatocytes, we identified 22 differentially expressed genes for which the corresponding protein is known to exhibit transcription factor activity. We developed the Extended TILAR (ExTILAR) network inference algorithm based on the modeling concept of the previously published TILAR algorithm. Using ExTILAR, we inferred a transcription factor network based on gene expression data which puts these important genes into a functional context. This way, we identified a previously unknown relationship between Tgif1 and Atf3 which we validated experimentally. Beside its known role in metabolic processes, this extends the knowledge about Tgif1 in hepatocytes towards a possible influence of processes such as proliferation and cell cycle. Moreover, two positive (i.e. double negative) regulatory loops were predicted that could give rise to bistable behavior. We further evaluated the performance of ExTILAR by systematic inference of an in silico network.
Conclusions
We present the ExTILAR algorithm, which combines the advantages of the regression based inference algorithm TILAR, like large network sizes processable and low computational costs, with the advantages of dynamic network models based on ordinary differential equation (i.e. in silico knockdown simulations). Like TILAR, ExTILAR makes use of various priorknowledge types such as transcription factor binding site information and gene interaction knowledge to infer biologically meaningful gene regulatory networks. Therefore, ExTILAR is especially useful when a large number of genes is modeled using a small number of experimental data points.
Background
One of the aims in systems biology is to reveal functions and uncover causalities in the behavior of biological systems. As these systems are usually a composition of multiple processes, mathematical modeling is often applied to investigate processes of interest. The understanding of the parts contributes to the understanding of the system as a whole. One biological process of interest is the regulation of gene expression which is mostly influenced by transcription factors (TFs). These regulating proteins can have an activating or repressing effect on the expression of a gene. The extend of regulation largely depends on the activity of the TF which is determined on multiple levels, mostly the posttranslational level[1]. Therefore, the gene expression profile of a TF can generally not be considered as its activity profile. However, the target genes, their regulators (TFs) and the relations between these entities constitute a gene regulatory network (GRN) which gives information about the functions of the individual genes. This network is commonly represented as a graph where nodes correspond to the genes and edges are the regulatory relations between them.
To reconstruct GRNs, gene expression databased network inference is a widely accepted approach. Although highthroughput technologies such as microarrays and RNAseq have become more accessible (in terms of quality of the measurements, decreasing costs and advancing standard operating procedures) there are still central problems that hamper their inference. A major difficulty is that the number of available measurements is usually lower than required. Often, more genes than the number of available measurements are included in the model. This leads to an underdetermined system with a large amount of possible solutions. When dealing with time series data, a low temporal resolution of measurements contributes to this problem making it more difficult to obtain a reliable solution. Additionally, the usually low number of replicates does not account for the variability introduced by the methods of measurement and the natural biological variation. Hecker et al.[2] highlighted the relationship between the complexity of the model, the data required to explain the observed behavior and the quality of the inference result. Different algorithms have been proposed that cope with the aforementioned problems in various ways. For reviews on the different approaches see[2, 3]. Depending on the purpose of the model, we can distinguish these approaches by splitting them into two groups, algorithms that produce models that are able to quantitatively describe the dynamic behavior of the network, and algorithms which do not. Algorithms that belong to the first group are usually based on difference or differential equations. Although these models offer advantages such as the simulation of the dynamics and the modeling of complex relations between the components of a network, there are also drawbacks like an increased computational effort for network structure and parameter optimization. As a consequence, the number of genes that can be modeled is limited. Therefore, preselection of genes is required which supposes a vast priorknowledge about the relevant genes and processes. One of the freely accessible, readytouse algorithms that falls into this category is the successfully applied[4–6] NetGene rator algorithm[7, 8].
Depending on whether or not the utilized model is based on linear or nonlinear differential equations the number of free parameters and therefore the detail of the model, but also the complexity of the inference problem is increasing drastically[2]. There is always a trade off between the simplification of the real biological system under observation and the loss of important mechanisms of regulation[9]. The high degree of detail enables nonlinear models to represent the dynamic behavior of biological and biochemical systems in an adequate manner. Due to the high number of free parameters however, these models are often used under presumptions such as the availability of large amounts of data[10], a known network structure, constrains regarding the network structure[11, 12], or additional kinetic knowledge[13] or assumptions (such as nonlinear sigmoidal activation functions as used by Mjolsness et al.[14] or Toepfer et al.[8]). A lack of these presumptions may force modelers to choose linear over nonlinear models to minimize the number of parameters to estimate and reduce the search space. However, despite the loss of detail linear models have been shown to successfully represent regulatory networks that are able to effectively uncover causal relations between the entities of biological processes such as in[5, 15].
In the second group of algorithms, there is a tradeoff between the flexibility and possibility for quantitative, dynamic modeling and the advantage of processing larger network sizes. There are regressionbased algorithms such as LASSO[16], Least Angle RegreSsion (LARS)[17] or Transcription Factor binding site integrating LARS (TILAR)[18], correlationbased algorithms[19] and information theorybased algorithms such as the Algorithm for the Reverse engineering of Accurate Cellular Networks (ARACNE)[20], MRNET[21] or Context Likelihood of Relatedness (CLR)[22], which are able to infer large networks. Regression based algorithms were successfully used to infer full genomic networks[23, 24]. These algorithms use simple models and are known to be fast. Some of the methods were also shown to construct networks that tend to fulfill structural properties such as scalefreeness[25], which has been observed in real, existing biological networks[26]. Furthermore, the ARACNE algorithm was extended to the TimeDelay ARACNE (TDARACNE)[27] algorithm, which is able to consider temporal information.
In the following, we present an algorithm which combines the advantages of both of these classes, fast inference of medium size networks that can quantitatively model the dynamic behavior of the inferred network. We extend the existing TILAR algorithm that uses a linear network model based on the LARS algorithm. Networks inferred with TILAR consist of two types of nodes, the genes with measured expression profile to model and the regulating TFs, that connect these genes. Due to this concept of modeling, the algorithm makes use of various biological knowledge sources such as transcription factor binding site (TFBS) information and gene interaction knowledge. This information decreases the number of possible network structures and therefore, allows fast inference of reliable, biologically meaningful networks. While the TFBS knowledge is represented by the network edges that go from a regulating TF to a target gene (TFtogene relations), the gene interaction knowledge is represented by the edges that connect the target genes with the regulating TFs (genetoTF relations).
Extended TILAR (ExTILAR) adapts this modeling concept to produce network models that are based on linear ordinary differential equations. This allows the inference of networks from time series data, which can be used to uncover the most important unknown relations between genes and to identify potential key regulators. Linear models represent approximations close to a steady state (operating point) of nonlinear models that are adequate for living systems in principle. Nonlinear terms can and should be included in the proposed modeling algorithm if prior knowledge about the type of nonlinearity is available and if the number of experimental data is sufficient to identify the increased number of model parameters. However, the automatic identification of additional nonlinear model terms in general requires more independent experimental data in order to ensure a stable convergence of the algorithm to a unique model structure (see in[2] section 3.3.2). ExTILAR makes use of all replicatemeasurements at once, which produces stable networks that are robust to small variations in the data. To assess the performance of ExTILAR, the algorithm was applied to in silico data. The results were compared to those obtained by the published network inference tool NetGene rator[7, 8].
ExTILAR was applied to data from Zellmer et al.[28] which monitors the response of murine primary hepatocytes to the exchange of culture medium after a period of starvation. We investigated a set of differentially expressed genes for which the corresponding proteins are known to exhibit transcription factor activity (DETF). For some of these DETFs, little about their function in hepatocytes or liver in general was found in literature. By inferring a transcription factor network (TFN) (a GRN consisting of only TFs) with ExTILAR using the extracted DETFs, we study their potential roles in the cellular response and identify new causal relations. Subsequently, processing of the data and knowledge extraction will be described. Consecutively, the modeling concept of TILAR will be outlined, followed by the introduction of ExTILAR and a detailed description of its modified modeling concept. Finally, the results of the inference will be presented and analyzed. For validation, a knockdown experiment was performed which confirmed the predicted relation between the TFs Tgif1 and Atf3, and Dbp and Atf3.
Results and discussion
Inference from biological data
Data of primary murine hepatocytes from Zellmer et al.[28] were used to investigate the cellular response to the change of culture medium after a period of starvation (24 hours). Originally, a time series experiment (t = 3, 24, 27, 30, 36, 48 hours after isolation) with 2 biological replicates at the first time point and 3 biological replicates at the remaining time points was performed using 17 Affymetrix MOE4302 microarrays. For this study, we investigated only the second phase of the experiment (24 hours to 48 hours). Therefore, the time points will be subsequently referred to as 0, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hours after the change of culture medium. The workflow consists of 7 steps (Figure1), data preprocessing, identification of differentially expressed genes, clustering and extraction of DETFs (genes included in the model), extraction of regulatory relations between TFs and the DETFs (TFtogene relations), extraction of priorknowledge for the DETFs and the TFs (genetoTF relations), the network inference, the interpretation and analysis of the inferred TFN and finally, experimental validation of the extracted hypotheses.
Preprocessing and gene filtering
The latest custom chip definition file from Brainarray[29] (version 15) based on Entrez gene ID’s was used to annotate the microarrays. Preprocessing was performed using the standard robust multiarray average (RMA)[30, 31] procedure. Detection calls[32] were calculated and used for filtering of probe sets (see Methods). This resulted in 6306 genes that were analyzed for differential expression using a 2foldchange criterion. This resulted in 950 identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) (Additional file1). The enrichment analysis using GOstats[33] showed that the DEGs are associated with various metabolic processes such as organic acid metabolism, steroid and lipid metabolic processes (Additional file2).
Clustering
To identify groups of similarly regulated genes, the DEGs were clustered according to their expression profile using the selforganizing tree algorithm (SOTA)[34, 35]. This resulted in six clusters denoted as up, slowup, fastdown, down, slowdown and middlepeakdown (Figure2). GOstats was used to perform an enrichment analysis for each cluster (Additional file3). The results show an increasing tendency over time in the expression profile of genes associated with oxidationreduction processes and glutathione metabolic processes (cluster 3), translation activity and the ribosome (cluster 2). Genes associated with other metabolic processes such as the fructose, glucose, lipid and steroid metabolic process (cluster 1 and 4) decreased in their expression level over time.
Extraction of DETFs
A total of 22 DETFs were extracted by filtering all DEGs associated with the GOcategory “sequencespecific DNA binding transcription factor activity” (GO:0003700). According to the Gene Ontology (GO) terms obtained from the MGI database[36], it was found that almost all extracted DETFs can be connected to either metabolic processes or differentiation/cell faith processes (Table1).
Extraction of priorknowledge
oPOSSUM was used to identify possible regulators for each cluster[37, 38]. Therefore, the promoter region from the transcription start site to 2000bp upstream was used to find overrepresented TFBSs using the binding site information from the Jaspar database[39]. This resulted in a total of 79 TFs for the six clusters.
Transfac[40] and Pathway Studio 8.0[41] were used to identify regulating TFs that are known to have an influence on the expression of the extracted DETFs of the data set (TFtogene relations). While Transfac contains experimentally validated TFBS for most of the identified TFs, Pathway Studio was applied to extend the list of potential regulators using literature knowledge derived by textmining. This way, 215 TFtogene relations were extracted for 16 DETFs. However, no TFBS information was retrieved for six DETFs (Gatad1, Csrnp1, Dbp, Klf16, Maff and Tsc22d1) using either of the two approaches. To make them available for the network inference process, an artificial TF was added for each of them. This is necessary as the modeling concept of TILARbased algorithms allows to model gene regulation exclusively via TFs and not directly between the genes. Each DETF should have at least one TF to act not only as the regulating source, but to be also available as a target of regulation. This resulted in a total of 323 TFtogene relations for the clusters as well as for the DETFs. priorknowledge was obtained using Pathway Studio 8. 543 genetoTF relations were extracted where a DETF was identified to modulate the expression of a potentially regulating TF.
Extraction of validation knowledge
PathwayStudio 8.0 was used to extract known, direct relations between the DETFs included in the model. As these 36 relations are not used for the network inference process, they can be used to validate the final network.
TFBS integrating LARS (TILAR)
TILAR uses a linear network model to construct GRNs based on LARS[18]. A particular feature of the method is the ability to integrate multiple sources of knowledge into the inference process, namely TFBS information (TFtogene relations) as well as textmining knowledge about the regulation of TFs by the genes (genetoTF relations). TILAR prohibits the direct interaction of genes but allows interaction via TFs. In that, a regulating gene modulates the activity of a TF, which in turn regulates the expression of the target gene (Figure3AD). This concept is more biologically realistic than concepts that rely only on direct genetogene interactions and copes with the known problem that the activity of transcription factors is not only regulated on the transcriptional level but also through various other mechanisms such as (de)phosphorylation and dimerization[1]. Based on expression data only, the modeling of TF activity can lead to falsely inferred interactions. Therefore, TILAR does not model the TF activity but uses the TFBS knowledge to model them as “bridges” between the genes. This way, regulating TFs are included in the model but no additional information such as expression or activity profiles have to be known. Additionally, the number of possible network structures is reduced as multiple genes can share the same TF. This concept can be expressed in the following equation:
The predicted expression level${\widehat{x}}_{i}$ of the regulated gene i is the result of the sum of the weighted expression levels w_{ kj }x_{ j } of all regulating genes j (j=1…N) via the transcription factor k (k=1…F) if (i) the gene i has a binding site for the TF k and (ii) the gene j is not regulated by the TF k.
To use regression for the estimation of the parameters w_{ kj }, equation 1 has to be expressed in the basic regression model form$\u0177={X}_{M\times N}\ast \beta $ where$\u0177$ is the prediction vector that contains the predicted values corresponding to the observed values in the response vector y=x, β denotes for the parameters w_{ kj }and X corresponds to the regression matrix that contains the observed measurements x_{ ij } (with i=1,…,N and j=1,…,M) where N is the number of variables and M is the number of measurements. Therefore, given a gene i (i=1,…,N) which possesses at least one TFBS, the equation 1 can be expressed in matrix form:
The predicted expression value${\u0177}^{i}$ of gene i is calculated using the vector of regression coefficients β^{i} and the regression matrix X^{i} which contains the observed expression values x_{ j }of the genes j (j=1…N). X^{i} is composed of M rows and NF−B^{i} columns, where M is the number of measurements and B^{i}denotes for the number of TF k to gene relations where (i) the TF k is not regulating the gene i or (ii) the TF k is regulating gene j or both. To estimate all parameters at once, the equations for the N genes can be jointly expressed in matrix form:
The regression matrix X is composed of M N_{ r }rows and FN−B columns where N_{ r }is the number of genes that possess at least one transcription factor binding site and B denotes for the number of TFtogene relations.
Variable selection and estimation of the regression coefficients can be performed by using the least shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm, a constraint ordinary least square (OLS) approach[16]. Selecting a candidate vector of regression coefficients$\widehat{\beta}={({\widehat{\beta}}_{1},\dots ,{\widehat{\beta}}_{{N}^{{}^{\prime}}})}^{T}$ (with$\widehat{\beta}\in \widehat{B}$) of the set of all possible candidate regression coefficient vectors$\widehat{B}$, we calculate the prediction vector${\u0177}^{i}$ (with y^{i}=x_{ i }and i=(1,…,M^{′}):
with the residual sum of squares (RSS)
LASSO chooses the vector of regression coefficients${\widehat{\beta}}^{\ast}$ which minimizes the RSS
with the additional constrain
that the sum of the absolute regression coefficients is lower than a certain threshold s (equation 7). This controls the sparseness of the resulting model. When using the adaptive LASSO approach, an additional weighting parameter δ_{ j }(j=1…N^{′}) is specified (within the range of [0,1]) to shrink the regression coefficient${\widehat{\beta}}_{j}$ and thus, support the insertion of the corresponding priorknowledge genetoTF edge into the model. The modified Least Angle Regression (LARS) algorithm was shown to produce the full set of the LASSO estimates with an increased computational efficiency[17]. Therefore, the adaptive LARS is used instead of the adaptive LASSO.
Extended TILAR (ExTILAR)
TILAR was extended to enable the inference of gene regulatory networks from time resolved data by a system of differential equations approximated by a set of difference equations with the time interval Δt=t_{ m }−t_{m−1}. By approaching Δt towards zero, the difference equations become differential equations which can be numerically solved with standard algorithms. In ExTILAR, the possibility to model the systems response to external perturbations as well as the possibility of autoregulation were added to the modeling approach of TILAR. It is important to note that the autoregulation term as it is used in the model does capture the sum of all effects that might influence the abundance of the transcript such as selfregulation and RNAdegradation. In that, a gene may be regulated by (i) other genes via TFs, (ii) the sum of autoregulatory effects and (iii) the input of one or more external perturbations (Figure3EG). Thus, the parameters to estimate are assigned to genetoTF interactions, autoregulation and input signal to gene interactions. The modeling concept of ExTILAR can be expressed as:
According to this equation, the quotient of difference of expression$\frac{\Delta {x}_{i}}{\mathrm{\Delta t}}=\frac{{x}_{i}\left[{t}_{m}\right]{x}_{i}\left[{t}_{m1}\right]}{{t}_{m}{t}_{m1}}$ of the gene i (i=1…N) from the time point t_{m−1} to t_{ m } is the sum of three terms. The first term (G(i,m)) describes the weighted influence w_{ kj } of the regulatory genes j (j=1…N) at t_{m−1} on the expression level x_{ i }of gene i at t_{m−1} via the TF k (k=1…F). The gene i is regulated by the genes j via the TF k if, (i) i possesses a TFBS for k and (ii) j is not regulated by k. This term equals the original TILAR model shown in equation 1. The second term (A(i,m)) describes the autoregulatory effect a_{ i }at the expression level x_{ i } of gene i at t_{m−1}. The third term (I(i,m)) describes the influence of the input perturbation u_{ c }(c=1…N) at t_{m−1}. As outlined in the TILAR section, equation 8 has to be expressed in regression model form to allow parameter estimation using LARS in the aforementioned way. The full set of equations for all genes is a Ncoupled system and can be expressed in matrix form:
Here, the regression matrix X is composed of$\left(\right)close="">{M}^{\mathrm{\prime \prime}}=(M1){N}_{r}^{\prime}R$ rows and N^{′′}=(N^{′} + U + A) columns.$\left(\right)close="">{N}_{r}^{\prime}$ denotes for the number of genes which have at least one TFBS (N_{ r }) or at least one input to gene relation. Because temporal information is considered in equation 8, given an experiment with M time points, we calculate y as the quotient of difference of expression$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta x}}{\mathrm{\Delta t}}$, which leaves us with M−1 measurements for each gene i ($\left(\right)close="">i=1,\dots ,{N}_{r}^{\prime}$).
Experiments often have biological replicates for the measurements at each time point. This leads to the same time series being measured R times. As ExTILAR makes use of these replicates by including them in the regression matrix X, there is a total of M−1 measurements for each gene i for each of the timeseries replicates R. Compared to equation 3, U + A columns are added to the regression matrix X where U is the number of inputtogene relations and A denotes for the number of genes which are autoregulated. Since only genes, which possess at least one TFBS or at least one inputtogene relation are considered in the rows of X, A equals$\left(\right)close="">{N}_{r}^{\prime}$.
LARS can now be used to efficiently perform automatic variable selection and simultaneous regression coefficient estimation (equations 47). However, for the adaptive LARS it is important to notice that the δ_{ j }parameter in equation 7 is now determining the integration of the genetoTF priorknowledge edges, as well as the inputtogene edges and the autoregulatory edges. This way, not only priorknowledge but also autoregulation as well as regulation by the input can be softintegrated into the model. The δ parameter can be set between one and zero with increased integration for values close to zero.
Although the introduction of these input parameters offers greater possibilities for finetuning of the algorithm, parameter identification is a crucial step for the inference of networks from biological data. A major problem is that the true underlying structures and processes are often unknown and the mathematical model that the inference algorithm is based on can always only be an abstraction of the truth. Therefore, a good set of parameters needs to be found which leads to inferred networks that maximize the amount of integrated biological priorknowledge and adequately reproduce the observed dynamics. Regarding the integration of priorknowledge a requirement is that the knowledge used to infer the network must be different from the knowledge that is used for its validation. An advantage of the TILARfamily algorithms is that genetoTF knowledge is used during the inference, which can be obtained by literature textmining. The genetoTF relations together with the TFtogene relations implicitly define genetogene interaction information which can also be derived from literature. Therefore, this concept of modeling makes use of two distinct priorknowledge sets, one that is used during the network inference and one that is used for validation purposes only. The advantage of using these multiple priorknowledge sources was shown by Hecker et al.[2]. Comparing the TILAR inferred static networks with the results obtained from comparable inference algorithms such as ARACNE, CLR or LASSO, they were able to show that already the introduction of TFBS knowledge yielded to better performance. Moreover, they showed that an additional softintegration of priorknowledge further increased the reliability of the inferred genetogene relationships.
Network inference using ExTILAR
For the network inference, the measured expression profiles for the 22 DETFs as well as the mean gene expression profile for each cluster were scaled to an absolute maximum value of 1. Linearly interpolated data was added to provide equidistant measurements (Δt=1 hour). An exponentially decreasing input function was defined to model the change of culture medium.
In an initial parameter study the autoregulation weight and the input weight were tuned by testing 25 combinations of these two parameters. The best results in terms of quality of the fit (deviation from the measured data, RSS), number of included priorknowledge edges and number of the total edges was found when using an input weight of 0.5 and an autoregulation weight of 0.75 (Figure4). The delta parameter (δ of equation 7) which regulates the integration of priorknowledge was set to 0.5. This setting, which corresponds to a moderate knowledge integration ensured that the priorknowledge is not the driving force for determining the structure but is still respected. In the second analysis we tested the influence of the delta parameter on the quality of the predicted network in terms of priorknowledge integration, the total number of inferred edges and the fit of the simulation to the measured data. Seven networks with decreasing delta value (1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01) were inferred and the resulting networks were compared. Table2 shows how the priorknowledge is softintegrated into the network with decreasing delta and highlight that a delta value of 0.1 offers the best balance between a high precision and a low RSS. A further decrease of delta (like 0.05 and 0.01) leads to overfitting of the network to the prior knowledge which results in a strong decrease of quality of the simulated kinetics to the measured gene expression profiles (strong increase of RSS). The ExTILARinferred network (subsequently referred to as TFN) using these parameters is outlined in Figure5 (for Cytoscape session see Additional file4), the simulated gene expression dynamics are plotted in Figure6. In Figure5, the input node and all inputtogene edges were removed for better visualization. The inputtogene edges and their weights are listed in Table3.
Network interpretation
The inferred TFN (Figure5) is composed of clusters, DETFs and TFs. The clusters can be seen as functional modules representing biological processes the enclosed genes are involved in while the DETFs resemble measured genes for which the corresponding protein is known to exhibit transcription factor activity. The TFs are bridging elements that connect clusters and DETFs among each other. The ExTILAR inferred TFN consists of 91 inferred edges, four autoregulatory edges, 27 inputtogene edges (Table3) and 60 genetoTF edges. 47 out of the 60 genetoTF edges are supported by priorknowledge, which was given for the inference (green edges). The 13 remaining edges are predicted, novel interactions (gray edges). 15 relations of the extracted validation knowledge were found to be integrated in the network (waved edges). The negative autoregulation edge of Egr1 however was found to be contrary to literature knowledge from smooth muscle cells[42].
In Figure5, the node size of the modeled DETFs is determined by the number of outgoing relations. Notably, most of the DETFs have a low outdegree while only a few of them are highly connected. This observation is an important structural property which was found to be common for biological networks. In the TFN, this hublike role is accomplished by Egr1 and Cebpa. They are highly connected to DETFs associated with diverse biological roles. Sorting the absolute weights of the inputtogene relations (Table3) reveals that Egr1 has the highest absolute weight (0.294) just before Fos(0.257), Cl6 (0.242), Cl5 (0.241) and E2f6 (0.223). Cebpa appears only at the 18th position (0.156). This data shows that, according to the network, Egr1 but not Cebpa is one of the DETFs initially affected by the exchange of culture medium. This finding in the network is supported by current literature knowledge which identifies especially Egr1 as a distributing TF rather then a direct effector of physiological changes[43]. The DETFs of the TFN can roughly be divided into 2 groups describing the main biological functions observed as a response upon the exchange of the culture medium. The first group contains genes which are known to affect metabolic processes during the second 24 h cultivation period of primary mouse hepatocytes (Cebpa, Dbp, Foxa1, Nr1h4, Ppara, Srebf1, Srf, Tgif1). The second group consists of DETFs that can be associated with proliferation and regulation of the cell cycle (Atf3, Cebpb, Cebpd, Dbp, E2f6, Fos, Irf1, and Tsc22d1).
Regulation of metabolic processes
Regulation of metabolic processes is mainly exerted by Cebpa, Foxa1, Nr1h4, Ppara, Srf, Srebf1 and Tgif1. Of these DETFs, Cebpa plays a distributing role within this group. This is consistent with literature as the TF was described to be an important regulator of the energy metabolism[44]. The connection to cluster 4 further highlights the importance of Cebpa for processes such as the lipid and glucose metabolism[45–47]. Cluster 4 genes are significantly overrepresented in these biological processes. Interestingly, Srebf1, Nr1h4 and Foxa1 are three genes which were found to be interconnected in two double negative loops. The first loop between Srebf1 and Nr1h4 is partially supported by validation knowledge as Nr1h4 is known to inhibit Srebf1 expression[48]. To our knowledge, they have not been considered in a loop jet. Srebf1 is affecting the lipid metabolism[49–51] and was found to be affected by the feeding regime[52–54]. Controversially to the experimental in vitro data given here, in vivo experiments showed that the TF is decreased during fastening and increased upon refeeding[51]. Like Srebf1, Nr1h4 is also important for the lipid metabolism[55, 56] and glucose homeostasis[57–59]. Additionally, the TF was found to regulate the bile acid metabolism and the metabolism of xenobiotics[60–63]. Interestingly, Nr1h4 is thought to modulate the fastingrefeeding transition in mice[58].
The second loop, which is supported by priorknowledge regarding the genetoTF interactions is formed by Foxa1 and Nr1h4. Foxa1 is also associated with metabolic processes and plays a central role in the glucose homeostasis[64–67].
Loops, where both edges are negatively regulating can exert a switch like function. This can lead to interesting biological features such as bistability of the system.
Tgif1 is one of the DETFs of which less is known so far. This TF was found to repress transcription of RXR and LXR target genes[68–71]. Both of these nuclear receptors are known to play important roles in the regulation of diverse metabolic functions such as the lipid and glucose metabolism. Interestingly, expression of Tgif1 is negatively related to the expression of Atf3, a TF that is associated to cell cycle regulation and proliferation as described in the next section. Therefore, Tgif1 might play a greater role then currently known, affecting metabolic as well as proliferative processes within hepatocytes.
Proliferation and regulation of the cell cycle
Hepatocytes remain in the quiescent G0 phase in the liver under normal conditions. Events that lead to the loss of liver mass result in the release of cytokines and the subsequent activation of TFs that prime the hepatocytes for proliferation. Zellmer et al.[28] showed that hepatocytes, cultured on collagen monolayers are primed through a cytokine independent activation of MAPK signaling within 24 hours after isolation. They identified Etf, E2f1 and Sp1 as having a potentially pronounced role in mediation of the proliferative effect within the first 24 hours after isolation. Since the present study uses the data of Zellmer et al. but focuses on the second phase of the experiment (24 hours after the exchange of culture medium), the aftereffects of the proliferation initiation and cell cycle regulation were monitored as well.
Among the DETFs modeled in the inferred network, regulation of proliferation and the cell cycle is mainly exerted by Atf3, Cebpb, Cebpd, Dbp, E2f6, Fos, Irf1 and Tsc22d1. Within this group, Fos is highly connected and regulated by seven other DETFs including Egr1. Moreover, Fos was found to have the second largest inputtogene weight. This central function is supported by the finding that Fos expression is a prerequisite for the reentry of quiescent cells into the cell cycle[72]. In the TFN, Fos is positively regulating Irf1 and Cebpd, both of which were found to be involved in proliferation and the cell cycle[73–75]. Interestingly, these two TFs can be found to negatively regulate Fos expression in turn. Irf1 is a gene for which the expression levels were found to be lowered after serum induced growth of serum starved cells in G0, and increased before and during the S phase[73]. Altogether, the decreasing expression profile of Fos and the continuously increasing expression profile of Irf1 supports the finding by Zellmer et al. that induction of proliferation happens in the first 24 hours after isolation. During the second phase however, the hepatocytes seem to be in the transition towards, or already in the S phase. The increasing expression profile of E2f6 is concordant with the identification of E2f1 as an important TF in the proliferation process. E2f6 was identified to repress E2factivated transcription during the S phase, therefore balancing cell cycle control of E2ffamily members such as E2f1[76].
Id3, Atf3 and Tsc22d1 are rather terminal nodes within the inferred network and are (beside Tsc22d1) not regulating any other DETFs. This could be due to the missing available priorknowledge regarding these DETFs. Atf3 is a transcriptional repressor that was found to delay cell cycle progression by slowing down the transition of the cell from G1 to S phase. It was shown that the TF also mediates positive and negative effects on proliferation[77, 78]. Tsc22d1 is rather poorly investigated. Knockdown experiments of Tsc22d1 might reveal important functions associated to cell cycle control and proliferation in hepatocytes.
Experimental validation
For experimental validation, we were interested whether or not a relation between Tgif1 and Atf3 expression exists. It is known that the two TFs are related as Atf3 has a promoter binding site for Smad3[79]. Tgif1 was reported to act as a corepressor by binding to the activated Smadcomplex (Smad2 and Smad3 can be bound)[70, 80]. Altogether, this suggests that there might be a causal relation between Tgif1 expression and Atf3 expression in hepatocytes. However, to our best knowledge, a relation between these two TFs has not been shown so far.
To investigate the effect that a Tgif1 knockdown might have on the system, we performed an in silico knockdown using the inferred TFN (Additional file5). Therefore, the logarithmized expression profile of Tgif1 was replaced by a linear decreasing function ranging from 0 at the 0h time point to 1 at the 24 h time point. Simulation of the network predicted an increase in Atf3, Cebpb and Klf16, and a decrease in Dbp. Analysis of the network shows that the increase in Cebpb and Klf16 both result from the decrease of Dbp, whereas the predicted increase in Atf3 is a result of the loss of repression by Tgif1 and the increase in Cebpb. Therefore, we also looked at Dbp expression, as this TF is directly regulated by Tgif1 in the network.
For validation, a real siRNAmediated knockdown of Tgif1 in cultured hepatocytes was carried out. At 6, 12 and 24 hours after transfection of the Tgif1 siRNA, expression levels of Atf3 and Dbp were measured using quantitative real time PCR (qRTPCR).An unambiguous upregulation of Atf3 and a downregulation of Dbp were detected (Figure7). Regarding the inhibition of Atf3 expression, this indicates that Tgif1 does not only play a role in altering metabolic processes such as lipid metabolism but might also positively affect hepatic proliferation and cell cycle regulation. The exact mechanism of repression however remains to be resolved, as three different modes of repression are currently known[80]. The downregulation of Dbp, although less severe, is of strong interest as it was shown that the expression of important cytochrome P450 family members is partially under the regulation of Dbp[81].
Conclusions
In this work, the linear model of the recently published network inference algorithm TILAR was extended to infer ODE based network models. With this approach, the ExTILAR algorithm combines the benefits of the regression based TILAR (low computational costs, large network size processable, incorporation of various knowledge sources, partial separation of network structure identification and parameter estimation) with the possibilities that ODE based models offer (in silico simulations of the response to external perturbations, reuse in other models, possibility of integration into multiscale modeling). Using a 5node network to create in silico data we were able to show that ExTILAR and NetGene rator inferred networks are of high quality with a performance advantage of ExTILAR over the NetGene rator (Additional file6). To make the algorithm easily accessible to the scientific community, we implemented ExTILAR in R. Together with the additional material, ExTILAR can be downloaded fromhttp://www.hkijena.de/index.php/0/2/490.
Applying the algorithm to biological data, we were able to present a TFN that models the main biological processes induced in hepatocytes upon culture medium exchange. We highlighted two possible regulatory loops between Srebf1, Nr1h4 and Foxa1. The function of these interesting network motifs will be motivation for further studies. Using a knockdown experiment read out by qRTPCR, the biological relevance of the inferred network was shown by the validation of two hypothesized relations between Tgif1 and Atf3, and between Tgif1 and Dbp. Thereby, we detected new, potential functions of Tgif1 and further highlight the TF’s importance in the hepatic transcription factor network. Although the exact mechanism of regulation remains to be clarified, this example highlights how ExTILAR can be successfully used combining various priorknowledge sources to infer biologically relevant, data supported regulatory networks.
Methods
All analysis were performed using the biological data analysis package Bioconductor[82] for the statistical programming language R[83].
Microarray preprocessing and gene filtering
Analysis of Affymetrix microarrays involves the initial annotation of the probe sets of the chips. A custom chip definition file is used to map the probes on the microarray to a genomic sequence and thus, to the transcript of a certain gene. However, it is well known that a large number of probe sets includes probes which match multiple transcripts and also probes which do not match any transcript[84]. Therefore, the custom chip definition file from Brainarray (Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan)[29] based on EntrezIDs was used for this analysis to obtain the gene expression intensity levels.
Detection calls of the raw data were obtained and used as an additional filter to remove uncertain probe sets. The method is used to remove transcripts for which the expression level is below the threshold of detection. This is described in detail in the Affymetrix Statistical Algorithms Description Document[32].
The mas5calls function of the affy package[85] was used with default settings to compute the detection calls. Probe sets declared as present or marginal in less then 80 percent of the analyzed microarrays were removed from the data set.
RMA[30] was used for preprocessing the data. This involved RMA background correction, quantile normalization and summarizing.
The preprocessed dataset was analyzed for DEGs using the twofold criterion. A gene was called differentially expressed if its mean expression profile exhibited an absolute log2FC of 1 or greater with respect to the 0 hour sample.
Clustering and identification of overrepresented TFBSs
The data was prepared for clustering by scaling each mean expression profile to the absolute maximum foldchange value of 1. The clustering algorithm and the number of clusters was determined by using the clValid package for R[86]. In total, nine clustering algorithms (hierarchical clustering, kmeans, diana, fanny, SOM, PAM, SOTA, clara and model) were compared for 2 to 14 possible clusters regarding three internal validation measures (Dunn index[87], average silhouette width[88] and connectivity[89]) and stability validation measures (average proportion of nonoverlap, average distance and average distance between means). These measures are outlined in detail in[86]. The SOTA algorithm was found to perform best using six clusters. The cluster enrichment analysis was performed using the GOStats package for R[33] based on the org.Mm.eg.db package[90].
oPOSSUM was used to search for overrepresented TFBS among the genes of each cluster[37, 38]. The top 14 TFBSs (ordered by the ZScore) identified using a promoter region of 2000 base pairs upstream to the transcription start site were selected if they achieved a ZScore of at least 4.8.
ExTILAR GRN inference
The log2FC profiles for the genes as well as the mean cluster log2FC profiles were standardized to a maximum absolute log2FC of 1. To obtain equidistant measurements for the regression based on difference equations, missing measurements were added using linear interpolation. An exponential decreasing input function was defined. This choice is based on the assumption that the change of culture medium is an initially strong stimulus that the cells adapt to. Over time, the stimulus becomes less severe as the effects induced in response to the stimulus become the dominating stimulus. Also, the supplied nutrients are consumed by all cells in the culture and thus, are decreased. However, together with the extracted TFtogene relations, the regression matrix was constructed according to equation 9. LARS was used to select and estimate the variables and calculate the Cp. As outlined in the original TILAR publication, we selected the model that minimizes the Cp statistic as sparse networks are favored[18]. A stepwise forward selection procedure was chosen to optimize the model structure. Starting from a network using no TFtogene relation, this procedure iteratively adds the edges that minimize the RSS of the inferred network compared to the RSS of the inferred network from the previous iteration. This iterative addition of TFtogene relations is stops if (i) there are no more TFtogene relations to add, or (ii) the RSS of the previous iteration is not undercuted. After the last iteration, the final network model was selected using the Pm measure described in the next section. We then performed an OLS fit of the final model using only the selected variables. Therefore, variable selection was performed using LARS but the actual estimation of the coefficient was obtained by a OLS fit. For details see the original TILAR publication[18].
Model selection
Regardless of the implementation of LASSO used, the result is always a set of models with a differing number of variables (regression coefficients) and their estimates. The user has to apply a criterion to find a model with good quality. The quality of the network selection is always a tradeoff between the datafit and the number of parameters used in the network. One way to define the quality of a model is how well a model fits to the measured data, disregarding the number of parameters used. This is described by minimization of the RSS, which is defined in equation 5. Models, which are selected using the RSS criterion tend to include lots of parameters. This often results in a good fit but to the expense of interpretability due to a high number of edges in the network.
Another model selection criterion is the Mallows Coefficient Cp[91]. The Cp is penalizing model complexity by considering the RSS with respect to the number p of variables used.
where RS S_{ p } is the residual sum of squares of the model with p (p=1…N^{′′}) variables and$\left(\right)close="">\mathrm{RS}{S}_{{p}_{\mathrm{max}}}$ denotes for the mean full model RSS using all variables (p_{ max }=N^{′′}).
The Pm is a third measure which is adding the scaled number of used regression coefficients p to the weighted (α with α∈R ; α≥1), scaled RSS.
The model which minimizes the Pm is selected, as the inclusion of more variables into the model does not lead to a significant decrease of the RSS. The decrease is significant if the RSS diminishes faster then the variable size is increasing. Adjusting alpha to higher values increases the number of edges included in the model.
Experimental procedure Tgif1knockdown
Hepatocyte isolation, cultivation and transfection
Primary hepatocytes from C57BL/6N mice were isolated by collagenase perfusion of the liver according to Gebhardt et al., 2003[92]. Hepatocytes were suspended in Williams Medium E containing 10% fetal calf serum, 0.1 μ M Dexametasone, 2mM Glutamine and Penicillin/Streptomycin mix[28, 93], and were plated onto 12well plates precoated with collagen type I (0.1 Mio cells/well, sample replicates of three wells). Cells were incubated at 37°C and 5% CO_{2}. After 2 hours, the cells were cultured with a serumfree medium for further 22 hours.
After 24 hours total cultivation time, the serumfree medium was renewed and chemically synthesized siRNA for Tgif1 (20 nmol) was transfected with INTERFERin^{TM} purchased from Peqlab (Erlangen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Tgif1specific siRNA (Gene Solution siRNA; target sequence CACCTACAGTCTAATGAGTAA) and the respective scrambled control siRNA was purchased from Qiagen (Hilden, Germany). The cells were incubated with the siRNA for additional 6, 12 and 24 hours. Total RNA from hepatocytes was isolated with RNeasy plus Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) from three wells and pooled.
Quantitative qRTPCR
RNA was reverse transcribed using oligo(dt) primers and IM Promm II reverse transcriptase (Promega, Mannheim, Germany). The levels of the mRNA transcripts for Atf3, Dbp and βactin as housekeeping gene were determined using genespecific primers (Table4). qRTPCR measurements were carried out in duplicate using the Light Cycler® 2.0 Instrument and the LightCycler® FastStart DNA Master PLUS SYBR Green I (Roche, GrenzachWyhlen, Germany) or the Rotor Gene 6000® realtime PCR cycler and SYBR Green I (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The absolute quantitative analysis of the target genes were normalized to βactin.
Abbreviations
 DETF:

Differentially expressed genes for which the corresponding protein is known to exhibit transcription factor activity
 GRN:

Gene regulatory network
 TFN:

Transcription factor network
 LARS:

Least angle regression
 TILAR:

TFBSintegrating LARS
 ARACNE:

Reverse engineering of accurate cellular networks
 CLR:

Context likelyhood of relatedness
 TFBS:

Transcription factor binding site
 ExTILAR:

Extended TILAR
 TF:

Transcription factor
 RMA:

Robust multiarray average
 log2FC:

Log2 foldchange
 SOTA:

Selforganizing tree algorithm
 DEG:

Differentially expressed gene
 OLS:

Ordinary least squares
 ODE:

Ordinary differential equation
 Cp:

Mallows Cp coefficient
 RSS:

Residual sums of squares
 Pm:

Proposal measure
 qRTPCR:

Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction
 Egr1:

Early growth response 1
 Srf:

Serum response factor
 Tsc22d1:

Transforming growth factorbeta stimulated clone22
 Atf3:

Activating transcription factor 3
 E2f6:

E2F transcription factor 6
 Irf1:

Interferon regulatory factor 1
 Cebpa:

CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha
 Foxa1:

Forkhead box A1
 Tgif1:

TGFBinduced factor homeobox 1
 Dbp:

D site albumin promoter binding protein
 Fos:

FBJ osteosarcoma oncogen
 Id3:

Inhibitor of DNA binding 3
 Maff:

Vmaf musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene family, protein F (avian)
 Nr1h4:

Nuclear receptor subfamily 1, group H, member 4
 Klf16:

Kruppellike factor 16
 Zbtb16:

Zinc finger and BTB domain containing 16
 Srebf1:

Sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 1
 Cebpb:

CCAAT/enhancer binding protein beta
 Ppara:

Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha, Sp1: Transacting transcription factor 1
 E2f1:

E2F Transcription factor 1.
References
 1.
Calkhoven CF, Ab G: Multiple steps in the regulation of transcriptionfactor level and activity. Biochem J. 1996, 317 (Pt 2): 329342.
 2.
Hecker M, Lambeck S, Toepfer S, van Someren E, Guthke R: Gene regulatory network inference: data integration in dynamic modelsa review. Biosystems. 2009, 96: 86103. 10.1016/j.biosystems.2008.12.004. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.biosystems.2008.12.004]
 3.
Cho KH, Choo SM, Jung SH, Kim JR, Choi HS, Kim J: Reverse engineering of gene regulatory networks. IET Syst Biol. 2007, 1 (3): 149163. 10.1049/ietsyb:20060075.
 4.
Linde J, Wilson D, Hube B, Guthke R: Regulatory network modelling of iron acquisition by a fungal pathogen in contact with epithelial cells. BMC Syst Biol. 2010, 4: 14810.1186/175205094148. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/175205094148], 10.1186/175205094148
 5.
Linde J, Hortschansky P, Fazius E, Brakhage AA, Guthke R, Haas H: Regulatory interactions for iron homeostasis in Aspergillus fumigatus inferred by a Systems Biology approach. BMC Syst Biol. 2012, 6: 610.1186/1752050966. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1752050966]
 6.
Tierney L, Linde J, Müller S, Brunke S, Molina JC, Hube B, Schöck U, Guthke R, Kuchler K: An Interspecies Regulatory Network Inferred from Simultaneous RNAseq of Candida albicans Invading Innate Immune Cells. Front Microbiol. 2012, 3: 85[http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00085],
 7.
Guthke R, Möller U, Hoffmann M, Thies F, Töpfer S: Dynamic network reconstruction from gene expression data applied to immune response during bacterial infection. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (8): 16261634. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti226. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti226]
 8.
Toepfer S, Guthke R, Driesch D, Woetzel D, Pfaff M: The NetGenerator algorithm: reconstruction of gene regulatory networks. Lect Notes Bioinf. 2007, 4366: 119130.[http://www.cogsys.cs.unituebingen.de/publikationen/2006/spieth06models.pdf]
 9.
Spieth C, Hassis N, Streichert F, Supper J, Speer N, Beyreuther K, Zell A: Comparing Mathematical Models on the Problem of Network Inference. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2006), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Seattle,. 2006, USA: Springer, 305306.
 10.
Gustafsson M, Hörnquist M, Lundström J, Björkegren J, Tegnér J: Reverse engineering of gene networks with LASSO and nonlinear basis functions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009, 1158: 265275. 10.1111/j.17496632.2008.03764.x. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.17496632.2008.03764.x]
 11.
Spieth C, Streichert F, Speer N, Zell A: Inferring Regulatory Systems with Noisy Pathway Information. Proceedings of the German Conference on Bioinformatics (GCB 2005), Volume P71 of LNI. 2005, 193203.
 12.
Vilela M, Chou IC, Vinga S, Vasconcelos ATR, Voit EO, Almeida JS: Parameter optimization in Ssystem models. BMC Syst Biol. 2008, 2: 3510.1186/17520509235. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/17520509235]
 13.
Mjolsness E: On cooperative quasiequilibrium models of transcriptional regulation. J Bioinform Comput Biol. 2007, 5 (2B): 467490. 10.1142/S0219720007002874.
 14.
Mjolsness E, Mann T, Castano R, Wold B: From coexpression to coregulation: an approach to inferring transcriptional regulation among gene classes from largescale gene expression data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Volume 12. 2000, 928934.
 15.
Suzuki H, Forrest ARR, van Nimwegen E, Daub CO, Balwierz PJ, Irvine KM, Lassmann T, Ravasi T, Hasegawa Y, de Hoon MJL, Katayama S, Schroder K, Carninci P, Tomaru Y, KanamoriKatayama M, Kubosaki A, Akalin A, Ando Y, Arner E, Asada M, Asahara H, Bailey T, Bajic VB, Bauer D, Beckhouse AG, Bertin N, Björkegren J, Brombacher F, Bulger E, FANTOMC, et al.: The transcriptional network that controls growth arrest and differentiation in a human myeloid leukemia cell line. Nat Genet. 2009, 41 (5): 553562. 10.1038/ng.375. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/ng.375]
 16.
Tibishirani R: Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso. J R Statist Soc. 1996, 58: 267288. [http://0www.jstor.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/pss/2346178]
 17.
Efron B, Hastie T, Johnstone I, Tibshirani R: Least Angle Regression. Ann Stat. 2004, 32 (2): 407451. 10.1214/009053604000000067. [http://0www.jstor.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/stable/3448465]
 18.
Hecker M, Goertsches RH, Engelmann R, Thiesen HJ, Guthke R: Integrative modeling of transcriptional regulation in response to antirheumatic therapy. BMC Bioinf. 2009, 10: 26210.1186/1471210510262. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1471210510262]
 19.
Stuart JM, Segal E, Koller D, Kim SK: A genecoexpression network for global discovery of conserved genetic modules. Science. 2003, 302 (5643): 249255. 10.1126/science.1087447. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1126/science.1087447]
 20.
Margolin AA, Nemenman I, Basso K, Wiggins C, Stolovitzky G, Favera RD, Califano A: ARACNE: an algorithm for the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks in a mammalian cellular context. BMC Bioinf. 2006, 7 (Suppl 1): S710.1186/147121057S1S7. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/147121057S1S7]
 21.
Meyer PE, Kontos K, Lafitte F, Bontempi G: Informationtheoretic inference of large transcriptional regulatory networks. EURASIP J Bioinform Syst Biol. 2007, 2007 (1): 79879[http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1155/2007/79879]
 22.
Faith JJ, Hayete B, Thaden JT, Mogno I, Wierzbowski J, Cottarel G, Kasif S, Collins JJ, Gardner TS: Largescale mapping and validation of Escherichia coli transcriptional regulation from a compendium of expression profiles. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5 (1): e810.1371/journal.pbio.0050008. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050008]
 23.
Linde J, Buyko E, Altwasser R, Hahn U, Guthke R: Fullgenomic network inference for nonmodel organisms: A case study for the fungal pathogen Candida albicans. World Acad Sci, Eng Technol. 2011, 80: 224228. [http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v80/v8042.pdf]
 24.
Altwasser R, Linde J, Buyko E, Hahn U, Guthke R: GenomeWide ScaleFree Network Inference for Candida albicans. Front Microbiol. 2012, 3: 51[http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00051]
 25.
Gustafsson M, Hornquist M, Lombardi A: Largescale reverse engineering by the Lasso. eprint arXiv:qbio/0403012. 2004, [Available at: [http://arxiv.org/abs/qbio/0403012v1]
 26.
Barabási AL, Oltvai ZN: Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2004, 5 (2): 101113. 10.1038/nrg1272. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/nrg1272]
 27.
Zoppoli P, Morganella S, Ceccarelli M: TimeDelayARACNE: Reverse engineering of gene networks from timecourse data by an information theoretic approach. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010, 11: 15410.1186/1471210511154. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1471210511154]
 28.
Zellmer S, SchmidtHeck W, Godoy P, Weng H, Meyer C, Lehmann T, Sparna T, Schormann W, Hammad S, Kreutz C, Timmer J, von Weizsäcker F, Thürmann PA, Merfort I, Guthke R, Dooley S, Hengstler JG, Gebhardt R: Transcription factors, ETF, E2F, and SP1 are involved in cytokineindependent proliferation of murine hepatocytes. Hepatology. 2010, 52 (6): 21272136. 10.1002/hep.23930. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/hep.23930]
 29.
Dai M, Wang P, Boyd AD, Kostov G, Athey B, Jones EG, Bunney WE, Myers RM, Speed TP, Akil H, Watson SJ, Meng F: Evolving gene/transcript definitions significantly alter the interpretation of GeneChip data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33 (20): e17510.1093/nar/gni179. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/nar/gni179]
 30.
Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, BeazerBarclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, Speed TP: Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics. 2003, 4 (2): 249264. 10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249]
 31.
Irizarry RA, Bolstad BM, Collin F, Cope LM, Hobbs B, Speed TP: Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31 (4): e1510.1093/nar/gng015.
 32.
Affymetrix I: Statistical Algorithms Description Document. Tech. rep., Affymetrix; Santa Clara, CA: 2002.[http://www.affymetrix.com/support/technical/whitepapers.affx][http://www.affymetrix.com/support/technical/whitepapers.affx]
 33.
Falcon S, Gentleman R: Using GOstats to test gene lists for GO term association. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (2): 257258. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl567. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl567]
 34.
Dopazo J, Carazo JM: Phylogenetic reconstruction using an unsupervised growing neural network that adopts the topology of a phylogenetic tree. J Mol Evol. 1997, 44 (2): 226233.
 35.
Herrero J, Valencia A, Dopazo J: A hierarchical unsupervised growing neural network for clustering gene expression patterns. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17 (2): 126136, 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.2.126
 36.
Blake JA, Bult CJ, Kadin JA, Richardson JE, Eppig JT, MGDG: The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): premier model organism resource for mammalian genomics and genetics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39 (Database issue): D842D848.
 37.
Ho Sui SJ, Mortimer JR, Arenillas DJ, Brumm J, Walsh CJ, Kennedy BP, Wasserman WW: oPOSSUM: identification of overrepresented transcription factor binding sites in coexpressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33 (10): 31543164. 10.1093/nar/gki624. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/nar/gki624]
 38.
Ho Sui SJ, Fulton DL, Arenillas DJ, Kwon AT, Wasserman WW: oPOSSUM: integrated tools for analysis of regulatory motif overrepresentation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35 (Web Server issue): W245W252. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/nar/gkm427]
 39.
Sandelin A, Alkema W, Engström P, Wasserman WW, Lenhard B: JASPAR: an openaccess database for eukaryotic transcription factor binding profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32 (Database issue): D91D94. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/nar/gkh012]
 40.
Matys V, Fricke E, Geffers R, Gössling E, Haubrock M, Hehl R, Hornischer K, Karas D, Kel AE, KelMargoulis OV, Kloos DU, Land S, LewickiPotapov B, Michael H, Münch R, Reuter I, Rotert S, Saxel H, Scheer M, Thiele S, Wingender E: TRANSFAC: transcriptional regulation, from patterns to profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 374378.
 41.
Nikitin A, Egorov S, Daraselia N, Mazo I: Pathway studio–the analysis and navigation of molecular networks. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19 (16): 21552157, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg290
 42.
Wang B, Chen J, Santiago FS, Janes M, Kavurma MM, Chong BH, Pimanda JE, Khachigian LM: Phosphorylation and acetylation of histone H3 and autoregulation by early growth response 1 mediate interleukin 1beta induction of early growth response 1 transcription. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010, 30 (3): 536545. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.193821. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.193821]
 43.
Thiel G, Cibelli G: Regulation of life and death by the zinc finger transcription factor Egr1. J Cell Physiol. 2002, 193 (3): 287292. 10.1002/jcp.10178. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jcp.10178]
 44.
Ramji DP, Foka P: CCAAT/enhancerbinding proteins: structure, function and regulation. Biochem J. 2002, 365 (Pt 3): 561575. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1042/BJ20020508]
 45.
Wang ND, Finegold MJ, Bradley A, Ou CN, Abdelsayed SV, Wilde MD, Taylor LR, Wilson DR, Darlington GJ: Impaired energy homeostasis in C/EBP alpha knockout mice. Science. 1995, 269 (5227): 11081112, 10.1126/science.7652557
 46.
Matsusue K, Gavrilova O, Lambert G, Brewer Jr HB, Ward JM, Inoue Y, LeRoith D, Gonzalez FJ: Hepatic CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha mediates induction of lipogenesis and regulation of glucose homeostasis in leptindeficient mice. Mol Endocrinol. 2004, 18 (11): 27512764. 10.1210/me.20040213. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1210/me.20040213]
 47.
Inoue Y, Inoue J, Lambert G, Yim SH, Gonzalez FJ: Disruption of hepatic C/EBPalpha results in impaired glucose tolerance and agedependent hepatosteatosis. J Biol Chem. 2004, 279 (43): 4474044748. 10.1074/jbc.M405177200. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1074/jbc.M405177200]
 48.
Watanabe M, Houten SM, Wang L, Moschetta A, Mangelsdorf DJ, Heyman RA, Moore DD, Auwerx J: Bile acids lower triglyceride levels via a pathway involving, FXR, SHP, and SREBP1c. J Clin Invest. 2004, 113 (10): 14081418. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1172/JCI21025]
 49.
Shimano H: Sterol regulatory elementbinding protein1 as a dominant transcription factor for gene regulation of lipogenic enzymes in the liver. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2000, 10 (7): 275278, 10.1016/S10501738(00)000797
 50.
Wang Y, Botolin D, Xu J, Christian B, Mitchell E, Jayaprakasam B, Nair MG, Nair M, Peters JM, Peters JM, Busik JV, Busik J, Olson LK, Jump DB: Regulation of hepatic fatty acid elongase and desaturase expression in diabetes and obesity. J Lipid Res. 2006, 47 (9): 20282041. 10.1194/jlr.M600177JLR200. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1194/jlr.M600177JLR200]
 51.
Ponugoti B, Fang S, Kemper JK: Functional interaction of hepatic nuclear factor4 and peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptorgamma coactivator 1alpha in CYP7A1 regulation is inhibited by a key lipogenic activator, sterol regulatory elementbinding protein1c. Mol Endocrinol. 2007, 21 (11): 26982712. 10.1210/me.20070196. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1210/me.20070196]
 52.
Shimomura I, Shimano H, Horton JD, Goldstein JL, Brown MS: Differential expression of exons 1a and 1c in mRNAs for sterol regulatory element binding protein1 in human and mouse organs and cultured cells. J Clin Invest. 1997, 99 (5): 838845. 10.1172/JCI119247. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1172/JCI119247]
 53.
Shimano H, Horton JD, Shimomura I, Hammer RE, Brown MS, Goldstein JL: Isoform 1c of sterol regulatory element binding protein is less active than isoform 1a in livers of transgenic mice and in cultured cells. J Clin Invest. 1997, 99 (5): 846854. 10.1172/JCI119248. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1172/JCI119248]
 54.
Horton JD, Bashmakov Y, Shimomura I, Shimano H: Regulation of sterol regulatory element binding proteins in livers of fasted and refed mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998, 95 (11): 59875992.
 55.
Sinal CJ, Tohkin M, Miyata M, Ward JM, Lambert G, Gonzalez FJ: Targeted disruption of the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR impairs bile acid and lipid homeostasis. Cell. 2000, 102 (6): 731744.
 56.
Lambert G, Amar MJA, Guo G, Brewer Jr HB, Gonzalez FJ, Sinal CJ: The farnesoid Xreceptor is an essential regulator of cholesterol homeostasis. J Biol Chem. 2003, 278 (4): 25632570. 10.1074/jbc.M209525200. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1074/jbc.M209525200]
 57.
Ma K, Saha PK, Chan L, Moore DD: Farnesoid X receptor is essential for normal glucose homeostasis. J Clin Invest. 2006, 116 (4): 11021109. 10.1172/JCI25604. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1172/JCI25604]
 58.
DuranSandoval D, Cariou B, Percevault F, Hennuyer N, Grefhorst A, van Dijk TH, Gonzalez FJ, Fruchart JC, Kuipers F, Staels B: The farnesoid X receptor modulates hepatic carbohydrate metabolism during the fastingrefeeding transition. J Biol Chem. 2005, 280 (33): 2997129979. 10.1074/jbc.M501931200. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1074/jbc.M501931200]
 59.
Zhang Y, Lee FY, Barrera G, Lee H, Vales C, Gonzalez FJ, Willson TM, Edwards PA: Activation of the nuclear receptor FXR improves hyperglycemia and hyperlipidemia in diabetic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006, 103 (4): 10061011. 10.1073/pnas.0506982103. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1073/pnas.0506982103]
 60.
Makishima M, Okamoto AY, Repa JJ, Tu H, Learned RM, Luk A, Hull MV, Lustig KD, Mangelsdorf DJ, Shan B: Identification of a nuclear receptor for bile acids. Science. 1999, 284 (5418): 13621365.
 61.
Wang H, Chen J, Hollister K, Sowers LC, Forman BM: Endogenous bile acids are ligands for the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR. Mol Cell. 1999, 3 (5): 543553.
 62.
Parks DJ, Blanchard SG, Bledsoe RK, Chandra G, Consler TG, Kliewer SA, Stimmel JB, Willson TM, Zavacki AM, Moore DD, Lehmann JM: Bile acids: natural ligands for an orphan nuclear receptor. Science. 1999, 284 (5418): 13651368.
 63.
Lee FY, de Aguiar Vallim TQ, Chong HK, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Jones SA, Osborne TF, Edwards PA: Activation of the farnesoid X receptor provides protection against acetaminopheninduced hepatic toxicity. Mol Endocrinol. 2010, 24 (8): 16261636. 10.1210/me.20100117. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1210/me.20100117]
 64.
Carlsson P, Mahlapuu M: Forkhead transcription factors: key players in development and metabolism. Dev Biol. 2002, 250: 123.
 65.
Tomaru Y, Kondo S, Suzuki M, Hayashizaki Y: A comprehensive search for HNF3alpharegulated genes in mouse hepatoma cells by 60K cDNA microarray and chromatin immunoprecipitation/PCR analysis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003, 310 (2): 667674.
 66.
Moya M, Benet M, Guzmán C, Tolosa L, GarcíaMonzón C, Pareja E, Castell JV, Jover R: Foxa1 reduces lipid accumulation in human hepatocytes and is downregulated in nonalcoholic fatty liver. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (1): e3001410.1371/journal.pone.0030014. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1371/journal.pone.0030014]
 67.
Le Lay J, Kaestner KH: The Fox genes in the liver: from organogenesis to functional integration. Physiol Rev. 2010, 90: 122. 10.1152/physrev.00018.2009. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1152/physrev.00018.2009]
 68.
Bertolino E, Reimund B, WildtPerinic D, Clerc RG: A novel homeobox protein which recognizes a TGT core and functionally interferes with a retinoidresponsive motif. J Biol Chem. 1995, 270 (52): 3117831188., 10.1074/jbc.270.52.31178
 69.
Wotton D, Lo RS, Lee S, Massagué J: A Smad transcriptional corepressor. Cell. 1999, 97: 2939.
 70.
Wotton D, Lo RS, Swaby LA, Massagué J: Multiple modes of repression by the Smad transcriptional corepressor TGIF. J Biol Chem. 1999, 274 (52): 3710537110.
 71.
Melhuish TA, Chung DD, Bjerke GA, Wotton D: Tgif1 represses apolipoprotein gene expression in liver. J Cell Biochem. 2010, 111 (2): 380390. 10.1002/jcb.22713. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jcb.22713]
 72.
Nishikura K, Murray JM: Antisense RNA of protooncogene cfos blocks renewed growth of quiescent 3T3 cells. Mol Cell Biol. 1987, 7 (2): 639649.
 73.
Kröger A, Köster M, Schroeder K, Hauser H, Mueller PP: Activities of IRF1. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2002, 22: 514. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1089/107999002753452610],
 74.
Sanford DC, DeWille JW: C/EBPdelta is a downstream mediator of IL6 induced growth inhibition of prostate cancer cells. Prostate. 2005, 63 (2): 143154. 10.1002/pros.20159. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/pros.20159]
 75.
Zhang Y, Sif S, DeWille J: The mouse C/EBPdelta gene promoter is regulated by STAT3 and Sp1 transcriptional activators, chromatin remodeling and cMyc repression. J Cell Biochem. 2007, 102 (5): 12561270. 10.1002/jcb.21356. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jcb.21356]
 76.
Giangrande PH, Zhu W, Schlisio S, Sun X, Mori S, Gaubatz S, Nevins JR: A role for E2F6 in distinguishing G1/S and G2/Mspecific transcription. Genes Dev. 2004, 18 (23): 29412951. 10.1101/gad.1239304. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1101/gad.1239304]
 77.
Fan F, Jin S, Amundson SA, Tong T, Fan W, Zhao H, Zhu X, Mazzacurati L, Li X, Petrik KL, Fornace AJ, Rajasekaran B, Zhan Q: ATF3 induction following DNA damage is regulated by distinct signaling pathways and overexpression of ATF3 protein suppresses cells growth. Oncogene. 2002, 21 (49): 74887496. 10.1038/sj.onc.1205896. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/sj.onc.1205896]
 78.
Hagiya K, Yasunaga JI, Satou Y, Ohshima K, Matsuoka M: ATF3, an HTLV1 bZip factor binding protein, promotes proliferation of adult Tcell leukemia cells. Retrovirology. 2011, 8: 1910.1186/17424690819. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/17424690819]
 79.
Kang Y, Chen CR, Massagué J: A selfenabling TGFbeta response coupled to stress signaling: Smad engages stress response factor ATF3 for Id1 repression in epithelial cells. Mol Cell. 2003, 11 (4): 915926.
 80.
Shen J, Walsh CA: Targeted disruption of Tgif, the mouse ortholog of a human holoprosencephaly gene, does not result in holoprosencephaly in mice. Mol Cell Biol. 2005, 25 (9): 36393647. 10.1128/MCB.25.9.36393647.2005. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1128/MCB.25.9.36393647.2005]
 81.
Lavery DJ, LopezMolina L, Margueron R, FleuryOlela F, Conquet F, Schibler U, Bonfils C: Circadian expression of the steroid 15 alphahydroxylase (Cyp2a4) and coumarin 7hydroxylase (Cyp2a5) genes in mouse liver is regulated by the PAR leucine zipper transcription factor DBP. Mol Cell Biol. 1999, 19 (10): 64886499.
 82.
Gentleman R, Carey V, Bates D, Bolstad B, Dettling M, Dudoit S, Ellis B, Gautier L, Ge Y, Gentry J, Hornik K, Hothorn T, Huber W, Iacus S, Irizarry R, Leisch F, Li C, Maechler M, Rossini A, Sawitzki G, Smith C, Smyth G, Tierney L, Yang J, Zhang J: Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biology. 2004, 5 (10): R80+[http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/gb2004510r80]
 83.
Team RDC: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2011, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.rproject.org/[ISBN 3900051070]
 84.
Ferrari F, Bortoluzzi S, Coppe A, Sirota A, Safran M, Shmoish M, Ferrari S, Lancet D, Danieli GA, Bicciato S: Novel definition files for human GeneChips based on GeneAnnot. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8: 44610.1186/147121058446. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/147121058446]
 85.
Gautier L, Cope L, Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA: affy—analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics. 2004, 20 (3): 307315. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg405. PubMed PMID: 14960456
 86.
Brock G, Pihur V, Datta S, Datta S: clValid: Validation of Clustering Results. 2011, [http://cran.rproject.org/package=clValid]
 87.
Dunn JC: Well separated clusters and optimal fuzzypartitions. J Cybernetics. 1974, 4: 95104. 10.1080/01969727408546059.
 88.
Rousseeuw P: Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math. 1987, 20: 5365. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/03770427(87)901257]
 89.
Handl J, Knowles J, Kell DB: Computational cluster validation in postgenomic data analysis. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (15): 32013212. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti517. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti517]
 90.
Carlson M, Falcon S, Pages H, Li N: org.Mm.eg.db: Genome wide annotation for Mouse.
 91.
Mallows CL: Some Comments on Cp. Technometrics. 1973, 15 (4): 661675. [http://0www.jstor.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/stable/1267380],
 92.
Gebhardt R, Hengstler JG, Müller D, Glöckner R, Buenning P, Laube B, Schmelzer E, Ullrich M, Utesch D, Hewitt N, Ringel M, Hilz BR, Bader A, Langsch A, Koose T, Burger HJ, Maas J, Oesch F: New hepatocyte in vitro systems for drug metabolism: metabolic capacity and recommendations for application in basic research and drug development, standard operation procedures. Drug Metab Rev. 2003, 35 (23): 145213. 10.1081/DMR120023684. [http://0dx.doi.org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1081/DMR120023684]
 93.
Klingmüller U, Bauer A, Bohl S, Nickel PJ, Breitkopf K, Dooley S, Zellmer S, Kern C, Merfort I, Sparna T, Donauer J, Walz G, Geyer M, Kreutz C, Hermes M, Gütschel F, Hecht A, Walter D, Egger L, Neubert K, Borner C, Brulport M, Schormann W, Sauer C, Baumann F, Preiss R, MacNelly S, Godoy P, Wiercinska E, Ciuclan L, et al.: Primary mouse hepatocytes for systems biology approaches: a standardized in vitro system for modelling of signal transduction pathways. Syst Biol (Stevenage). 2006, 153 (6): 433447. 10.1049/ipsyb:20050067.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF FKZ 0315736, FKZ 0315735, Virtual Liver Network). We would like to thank Kerstin Heise and Doris Mahn (Institute for Biochemistry, Leipzig) for excellent technical assistance and Dr. Ekaterina Shelest (HansKnöllInstitute, Jena) for discussions and suggestions on the manuscript.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
RGu and RGe directed the study. RGe, SZ, MMS and EM performed the experiments and collected the data. SV carried out the analyses and wrote the paper. Part of the source code is from the TILAR publication of Hecker et al.[18]. The implementation for the stepwise forward selection was done by JL and extended by SV to work within the ExTILAR algorithm. RGu and RGe assisted in interpretation of the results and, together with JL, WSH and AMB, contributed writing the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Electronic supplementary material
12918_2012_1048_MOESM1_ESM.xls
Additional file 1:Detailed table of differentially expressed genes. Table of the differentially expressed genes containing the corresponding BrainarrayID, EntrezID, GenSymbol, assigned cluster number and the mean expression values at each time point. (XLS 226 KB)
12918_2012_1048_MOESM2_ESM.xls
Additional file 2:Enrichment analysis results of the DEGs. Details of the gene enrichment analysis using all differentially expressed genes. (XLS 40 KB)
12918_2012_1048_MOESM3_ESM.doc
Additional file 3:Enriched GOterms and KEGGpathways of the single clusters. Significant GO biological process (GOBP) terms and KEGGpathway (KEGG) terms for each cluster returned by GOstats. (DOC 14 KB)
12918_2012_1048_MOESM4_ESM.cys
Additional file 4:Transcription factor network. Cytoscape session of the transcription factor network shown in Figure 5. (CYS 21 KB)
knockdown simulation.
Additional file 5:In silico knockdown simulation. An image of the network simulation results of the in silico Tgif1 knockdown. (PNG 324 KB)
Performance analysis of ExTILAR.
Additional file 6: A performance analysis of ExTILAR using in silico data for a systematic inference. The results are compared to the results of the NetGene rator algorithm. (PDF 805 KB)
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Vlaic, S., SchmidtHeck, W., MatzSoja, M. et al. The extended TILAR approach: a novel tool for dynamic modeling of the transcription factor network regulating the adaption to in vitro cultivation of murine hepatocytes. BMC Syst Biol 6, 147 (2012). https://0doiorg.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/175205096147
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://0doiorg.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/175205096147
Keywords
 Gene regulation
 Dynamic network inference
 Transcription factor networks
 Key regulator identification
 Linear modeling
 Least angle regression
 Hepatocytes
 Liver
 Atf3  activating transcription factor 3
 Dbp  D site albumin promoter binding protein
 Tgif1  TGFBinduced factor homeobox 1