GEGE: Predicting Gene Essentiality with Graph Embeddings
Abstract
A gene is considered essential if its function is indispensable for the viability or reproductive success of a cell or an organism. Distinguishing essential genes from non-essential ones is a fundamental question in genetics, and it is key to understanding the minimal set of functional requirements of an organism. Knowledge of the set of essential genes is also crucial in drug discovery. Several reports in the literature show that the gene location in a protein-protein interaction network is correlated with the target gene’s essentiality. Here, we ask whether the node embeddings of a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network can help predict gene essentiality. Our results on predicting human gene essentiality show that node embeddings alone can achieve up to 88% AUC score, which is better than using topological features to characterize gene properties and other previous work’s results. We also show that, when combined with homology information across species, this performance reaches 89% AUC. Our work shows that node embeddings of a protein in the PPI network capture the network connectivity patterns of the proteins and improve the gene essentiality predictions.
Keywords
Graph representations, Node embeddings, Gene essentiality, Network topological features, Protein-protein interaction network
References
- [1] G. Rancati, J. Moffat, A. Typas, N. Pavelka, “Emerging and evolving concepts in gene essentiality”, Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 19, no.1, pp. 34, 2018.
- [2] M. Itaya, “An estimation of minimal genome size required for life”, FEBS Letters, vol. 362, no.3, pp. 257–60, 1995.
- [3] A. R. Mushegian, E.V. Koonin, “A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 93, no.19, pp. 10268–73, 1996.
- [4] E.V. Koonin, “How many genes can make a cell: the minimal-gene-set concept”, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 99–116, 2000.
- [5] M.Y. Galperin, E.V. Koonin, “Searching for drug targets in microbial genomes”, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 571–78, 1999.
- [6] A.F. Chalker, R.D. Lunsford, “Rational identification of new antibacterial drug targets that are essential for viability using a genomics-based approach”, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2002.
- [7] H. Farmer, N. McCabe, C.J. Lord, A.N. Tutt, D.A. Johnson, T.B. Richardson, et al. “Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy”, Nature, vol. 434, no. 7035, pp. 917, 2005.
- [8] N.J. O’Neil, M.L. Bailey, P. Hieter, “Synthetic lethality and cancer”, Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 18, pp. 10, pp. 613, 2017.
- [9] A. Cho, N. Haruyama, A.B. Kulkarni, “Generation of transgenic mice”, Current Protocols in Cell Biology, vol. 42, no. 1, chapter. 19, unit. 11, 2009.
- [10] G. Giaever, A.M. Chu, L. Ni, C. Connelly, L. Riles, S. V´eronneau, et al. “Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome”, Nature, vol. 418, no. 6896, pp. 387–91, 2002.