Comparing consensus modules using S2B and MODifieR

Abstract: It is currently understood that diseases are typically not caused by rogue errors in genetics but have both molecular and environmental causes from myriad overlapping interactions within an interactome. Genetic errors, such as that seen by a single-nucleotide polymorphism can lead to a dysfunctional cell, which in turn can lead to systemic disruptions that result in disease phenotypes. Perturbations within the interactome, as can be caused by many such errors, can be organized into a pathophenotype, or “disease module”. Disease modules are sets of correlated variables that can represent many of a disease’s activities with subgraphs of nodes and edges. Many methods for inferring disease modules are available today, but the results each one yields is not only variable between methods but also across datasets and trial attempts. In this study, several such inference methods for deriving disease modules are evaluated by combining them to create “consensus” modules. The method of focus is Double-Specific Betweenness (S2B), which uses betweenness centrality across separate diseases to derive new modules. This study, however, uses S2B to combine the results of independent inference methods rather than separate diseases to derive new modules. Pre-processed asthma and arthritis data are compared using various combinations of inference methods. The performance of each result is validated using Pathway Scoring Algorithm. The results of this study suggest that combining methods of inference using MODifieR or S2B may be beneficial for deriving meaningful disease modules.