The steps described textually above and graphically in Figure 1 were applied to the core oscillating GRN of the yeast cell-cycle to see if it is possible to discover functional GRN models that are capable of producing the dynamics observed in time series gene expression data collected in a yeast cell-cycle study16. To illustrate how the IDV can clarify and improve IDP output, the results, after performing this analysis in two ways, were compared: 1) running all steps of the IDP in one pass without the IDV and 2) stepping through the IDP with the aid of the IDV, which allows the adjustment of intermediate results both by incorporating prior biological knowledge and by making refined choices based on IDP outputs. The well-studied yeast cell-cycle GRN used as an example has many of its regulatory relationships experimentally verified. If a different and/or less annotated organism or biological process is being studied, the choices on how intermediate results or parameters are adjusted might be different. To illustrate one type of query that can be used to assess networks, the robustness of each network was measured to support stable oscillations and match the observed transcriptional dynamics of their nodes across model parameters.
Gene expression time series data of two replicate series were taken from Orlando 200816 and preprocessed to remove any gene expression associated with the cell-cycle synchronization method applied in the original experiment (Supplemental File 1 and Supplemental File 2). An annotation file was created containing all the genes in the time series data that are supported by both DNA binding and expression evidence found in Yeastract17 and thus could function as a regulator in a GRN. TOS4, PLM2, and NRM1 were also included as regulators, even though they were not found in Yeastract to have both types of evidence, because they are believed to be important for the yeast core GRN based on evidence in the literature18,19 (Supplemental File 3). All regulators were labeled as both an activator and repressor as well as targets.
The IDP was first parameterized to run through all steps of the IDP, that is Node, Edge, and Network Finding. A set of arguments was selected that appeared appropriate based on the current understanding of the yeast cell-cycle GRN, a small set of genes participating in a strongly connected network (Supplemental File 4). This understanding mostly influenced the Node and Edge Finding choices. The probabilities parameters in Network Finding were based on the assumption that only true genes and regulatory interactions would be passed onto Network Finding. This fully parameterized run of the IDP produced results for Node and Edge Finding (Figure 2B,C), yet in Network Finding no model-admissible networks were discovered (Figure 2A,D). Model admissibility is explained in the code documentation of the python module dsgrn_net_gen14, a dependency of the IDP. Briefly, networks that contain self-repressing edges or have too many inputs or outputs at a single node are not queryable by the DSGRN software (Table 1). The IDP gives many reasons why model-admissible networks may not be found and describes troubleshooting steps to resolve the issue(s). Essentially, this involves changing parameters and/or input files and rerunning the respective IDP step, and examining results. The IDV was used to make this process less tedious and time-consuming.
The Node Finding results were loaded into the IDV to examine the genes being passed to the Edge Finding step of the IDP. The nodes given by IDP are the top N genes as ranked by DLxJTK (Table 1), N being specified by the user, however, this gene list may not be appropriate for the goal of the analysis. Without prior biological knowledge, automatic selection of nodes using only DLxJTK scores returned a gene with limited evidence of a role in the yeast cell-cycle (RME1), while a few known cell-cycle transcriptional regulators were not highly ranked (Figure 2B). Yeastract experimental evidence was used to select from among the highest-ranking genes by DLxJTK those with cell-cycle annotation. These genes are SWI4, YOX1, YHP1, HCM1, FKH2, NDD1, and SWI5. Their known regulatory relationships can be seen in Figure 3. FKH2 does not appear in the top ten genes (dlxjtk_cutoff was set to ten in Supplemental File 4) as ranked by DLxJTK, so the gene list was extended using the IDV until FKH2 was found (Figure 4). Several of the additional genes in the extended gene list are known core genes and would have been missed without investigating the Node Finding results. While more known core genes have been found by extending the gene list down the DLxJTK ranked list, the focus was kept on the genes of interest. Therefore, some high-ranking genes were deselected, resulting in a gene list (Supplemental File 5) containing seven genes (Figure 4). A new annotation file was created (Supplemental File 6) based on these seven genes, each gene was labeled as a target, and the regulator type was specified using Yeastract. The new gene list and annotation file were downloaded for subsequent use in the next IDP step, Edge Finding. Without the IDV, the procedure of adding and removing genes from the gene list and annotation file would require modest coding skills.
A new IDP configuration file was parameterized for just the Edge Finding step (Supplemental File 7), with the new gene list and annotation file. After completion of the IDP with the new configuration file, results were loaded into the IDV (Figure 5A). As the Network Finding step searches stochastically around the network space of the seed network supplied to it, providing a good seed network can be important. A good seed network can be thought of as one that contains true edges. With the IDV and using online databases such as Yeastract and the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD)20, the seed network can be viewed and adjusted using the regulatory relationships from LEM (Table 1) that have experimental evidence. As an example, the edge YHP1 = tf_act(HCM1) was deselected because there is no documented evidence of this relationship (Figure 5B) in Yeastract. The edge SWI5 = tf_act(FKH2) was added as there is documented evidence of this relationship21. Once the seed network (Table 1) was satisfactory, the DSGRN network specification file for the network was downloaded (Supplemental File 8).
Without the IDV, there is a higher chance of edges for which there is no experimental evidence being used to construct the seed network. As can be seen in Figure 2C, the seed network generated in the Edge Finding step from running the IDP nonstop through each step contains an edge, SWI4 = tf_rep(NDD1), that is not supported by experimental evidence in Yeastract, likely because NDD1 is known to be a transcriptional activator22. This information was not encoded in the annotation file in the non-stop run, which allowed all regulators to be both activators and repressors.
Using the IDV, a seed network was manually curated that is a subnetwork of Figure 3, and the remaining four edges were placed in the edge list used for sampling network space (YHP1 = tf_act(SWI4), YOX1 = tf_act(SWI4), SWI4 = tf_rep(YOX1), SWI5 = tf_act(NDD1)). Selecting edges based on prior biological knowledge can also be used to build the edge list; however, in this case, the top 20 edges from the LEM Summary Table view were selected (Supplemental File 9). The node list file is created from the selected edges automatically (Supplemental File 10). The ODE parameters from LEM can also be used to filter edges if one believes the inferred parameters in the ODE model are not biologically realistic, but this information was not used here.
Next, a new IDP configuration file was parameterized for the Network Finding step using the three new files. As the seed network was created with edges well-supported by experimental evidence, the inclusion of these edges in all networks was desired. Thus, the Network Finding probabilities were set to allow the addition but not the removal of nodes and edges (Supplemental File 11). The Network Finding parameter numneighbors was set to search for 2,000 networks. After running the IDP, 37 model-admissible networks were found in the Network Finding step, as opposed to the non-stop run that had zero. Loading the Network Finding results into the IDV, 64% (24) of these 37 networks had the capacity to stably oscillate (Figure 6A). Of these 24 networks, the best performers were two networks that matched the data at 50% of their stably oscillating model parameters (Figure 6B).
The Edge Prevalence Table (Table 1) tabulates the number of times an edge occurs in a selected collection of networks, giving an indication of its prevalence in high-performing networks. Examining the Edge Prevalence Table produced by selecting the previous two networks in the scatter plot reveals that all the seed network edges are present in each of the two networks, as expected, along with two non-seed network edges (Figure 6B), SWI4 = tf_act(SWI5) and HCM1 = tf_rep(YHP1). Neither of these two edges had evidence supporting them in Yeastract. As such a small amount of network space was explored so it is difficult to assess the importance of edges and nodes in producing the observed dynamics.
Only 37 model-admissible networks were found in Network Finding even though the parameter numneighbors was set to 2,000, which suggests that the network search may have been unduly limited. As described in the documentation for the dsgrn_net_gen python module in the IDP, the issue could be related to the seed network, edge list, node list, Network Finding parameter choices, or some combination of these. To investigate, the same seed network, edge list, and node list as before were used, but the Network Finding parameters were altered by adding the ability to remove edges during network generation (Supplemental File 12). Loading the new Network Finding results into the IDV shows that 612 networks were found in this step, with 67% (411) of these networks having the capacity to stably oscillate (Figure 7A). Interestingly, 13% (82) of the networks that were capable of stable oscillatory dynamics were not capable of producing dynamics similar to those seen in the data (Figure 7B). Of the 411 networks, 30% (124) exhibited robust matches to data (i.e., more than 50% of their stably oscillating model parameters exhibited a data match) (Figure 7C).
The edge prevalence numbers generated by the second round of Network Finding are now based on a much larger selection of networks and can be more confidently used in assessing the importance of a regulatory relationship in a GRN. For instance, HCM1 = tf_rep(YHP1) is still represented highly in networks that produce robust dynamics, suggesting that this relationship could be worth investigating experimentally (Figure 7C). Further examination of the Edge Prevalence Table (based on the 124 networks mentioned above) revealed that the edges SWI4 = tf_rep(YOX1) and YOX1 = tf_act(SWI4) are not highly ranked yet the edges SWI4 = tf_rep(YHP1) and YHP1 = tf_act(SWI4) are highly ranked (Figure 7C). Negative feedback is important for producing oscillatory dynamics23 and both of these sets of regulatory relationships provide this function in the GRN in Figure 3. Finding if a network exists that contains all four of these edges could provide some insight into why these do not frequently exist together in the collection of GRN models; however, clicking through individual networks would be tedious. Instead, the Similarity Analysis portion of the Network Finding page was used to search for networks that may contain all four edges (Figure 7D). Examining the scatter plot that displays how similar the 612 networks are to a motif of these four edges versus the percentage of the model parameter space that matches the observed dynamics reveals that only 0.65% (4) of the 612 networks contain all four of these edges (Figure 7D). This suggests a testable hypothesis that only one of the two negative feedback loops is needed for a network of this size to produce the observed dynamics. This hypothesis can be further investigated computationally by reparameterization of IDP steps and a more exhaustive search of network space or experimentally, such as gene knockouts. All results from this analysis can be found in Supplemental File 13.

Figure 1: IDP and IDV workflow overview. The bottom row depicts the three major steps of the IDP: Node, Edge, and Network Finding. The top row depicts the major steps of the IDV and describes various ways a user can interact with the results. The dark gray arrows between the two depict how the IDV and the IDP can work synergistically to allow users to make informed decisions for each step of the IDP, with individual IDP steps providing results for the visualizations in the IDV, individual IDV steps allowing for the input of new or adjusted parameters and adjusted results and inputs for the subsequent IDP step. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Example of results from running every step of the IDP consecutively without using the IDV between steps. (A) A screenshot of the terminal output from running every IDP step consecutively. The IDP ran to completion, but zero networks were found during the Network Finding step. (B) Node Finding results directory node_finding_20210705183301 (Supplemental File 13) loaded into the IDV. All the genes in the gene list table were selected (red arrow) to show their respective expression profiles in the line graph and to generate an annotation table. The annotation table was filled in to reflect how the genes are labeled in the original annotation file (green arrow). (C) Edge Finding results directory edge_finding_20210705183301 (Supplemental File 13) loaded into the IDV. (D) Network Finding results directory network_finding_20210705183301 (Supplemental File 13) loaded into the IDV. The Network Finding page shows no results, suggesting either reparameterization of the Network Finding step or reevaluating the Node or Edge Finding step is needed. The IDP documentation contains troubleshooting steps for helping the user determine what they could try next. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: A yeast cell-cycle GRN model. A set of known yeast cell-cycle regulators were selected from SGD and known regulatory relationships between genes were extracted from Yeastract. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Example of IDP Node Finding results in the IDV. Loaded into the IDV is the Node Finding results directory node_finding_20210705183301 (Supplemental File 13). The adjusted results after inspecting curated online yeast databases. The gene list table was extended (yellow arrow) to find the remaining gene in the GRN model of Figure 3 and genes were deselected to remove genes not found in the same GRN model (red arrow). The annotation table was filled in based on evidence of regulation for each gene found on Yeastract (green arrow). The new gene list and annotation file were downloaded by selecting their respective download buttons (blue arrows). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Example of IDP Edge Finding results in the IDV. Loaded into the IDV is the Edge Finding results directory edge_finding_20210701100152 (Supplemental File 13). (A) The initial result as produced by the IDP. The Network dropdown option From Seed was selected (red arrow) to view the seed network produced by the IDP based on the arguments in the configuration file used (Supplemental File 7). The selected genes in the edge table are the edges used in the seed network. (B) The adjusted results after inspecting the seed network for edges that do not contain experimental evidence. The Network dropdown option From Selection was selected (red arrow). Edges were selected/deselected from the edge table (green arrow). The seed network, edge list, and node list files were downloaded by clicking their respective buttons (yellow arrows). The edge table shown is for the last time series data as listed in the configuration file two_wts_EdgeFinding_config.txt (Supplemental File 7). It is important when selecting edges for the seed network or edge list based on LEM results to look at the last time series data listed in the configuration file as this output incorporates all preceding datafiles in its inference of regulatory relationships between nodes. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Example of IDP Network Finding results in the IDV from using the IDP configuration file two_wts_NetFind_rd1_config.txt (Supplemental File 11). (A) The query Stable Full Cycle was selected (red arrow) to display the respective data on the y-axis in the scatter plot. Blue dots in the scatter plot represent selected points using the Box Select function for the scatter plot. The dotted selection box was illustrated to show what the box selection looks like. (B) The min and max integers for the y-axis and x-axis were manually entered to selected networks within these bounds (green arrow). After each selection, the Get Edge Prevalence from Selected Networks button (yellow arrows) was clicked and the Edge Prevalence Table and Selected DSGRN Predicted Networks areas were generated. In the Network Index, up and down arrows can be clicked to browse the selected networks (blue arrows). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Example of IDP Network Finding results in the IDV from using IDP configuration file two_wts_NetFind_rd2_config.txt (Supplemental File 12). (A-C) The selection of networks was performed by entering values into the min and max input boxes (red arrows). The Get Edge Prevalence from Selected Networks button was clicked to generate the Edge Prevalence Table and Selected DSGRN Predicted Networks areas. (D) Edges of interest were selected in the edge_list table (yellow arrow) and the Submit button (green arrow) was clicked to compute similarity scores to plot in the scatter plot against the query selected (blue arrow). The Box Select function was used to select a set of networks (purple arrow) to generate the Edge Prevalence Table and Selected DSGRN Predicted Networks areas. The Network Index was increased to 2 (orange arrow) to view the second network in the selection. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Term | Pipeline Step | Definition |
| de Lichtenburg by JTK-CYCLE (DLxJTK) | Node Finding | A single quantitative measure of both periodicity and regulation strength used to rank genes. Combines previously published periodicity metrics de Lichtenberg (DL) and JTK-CYCLE (JTK). |
| First Cycle Max Expression | Node Finding | The maximum gene expression during the first cycle of periodic gene expression. Genes ordered by First Cycle Max Expression will be ordered based on the time point from the first cycle at which they reach their maximum gene expression. |
| The Local Edge Machine (LEM) | Edge Finding | A Bayesian network inference method which ranks potential models of gene interactions to identify the most likely regulator(s) and modes of regulation (activation or repression) of a given target gene using time series gene expression data. |
| Seed Network | Network Finding | An initial guess at a plausible network of global interactions by selecting the top ranked LEM edges. The seed localizes a region of network space that is highly oscillatory with a high probability of showing consistency with the provided time series data. |
| Dynamic Signatures Generated by Regulatory Networks (DSGRN) | Network Finding | A software package for comprehensively computing the variety of long-term dynamical behaviors that a network can exhibit. |
| Edge Prevalence | Network Finding | The percentage of top scoring networks from the network finding step that include the edge in question. The score permits a ranking of edges that have a nonzero prevalence. |
Table 1: Definition of Inherent Dynamics Pipeline and Inherent Dynamics Visualizer terms.
Supplemental File 1: Time series gene expression data (Replicate 1) taken from Orlando, 200813. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 2: Time series gene expression data (Replicate 2) taken from Orlando, 200813. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 3: Annotation file containing all genes found in Supplemental File 1 and Supplemental File 2. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 4: Fully parameterized Inherent Dynamics Pipeline configuration file. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 5: Gene list file downloaded from the Node Finding page of the Inherent Dynamics Visualizer. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 6: Annotation file downloaded from the Node Finding page of the Inherent Dynamics Visualizer. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 7: Inherent Dynamics Pipeline configuration file parameterized for just the Edge Finding step. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 8: Seed network file downloaded from the Edge Finding page of the Inherent Dynamics Visualizer. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 9: Edge list file downloaded from the Edge Finding page of the Inherent Dynamics Visualizer. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 10: Node list file downloaded from the Edge Finding page of the Inherent Dynamics Visualizer. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 11: Inherent Dynamics Pipeline configuration file parameterized for just the Network Finding step. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 12: Updated Inherent Dynamics Pipeline configuration file (Supplemental File 11) parameterized for just the Network Finding step. Please click here to download this File.
Supplemental File 13: Directory containing the results from the Representative Results section. Please click here to download this File.