$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Representative results were produced following this protocol to study the associations between mitochondrial proteins (Table 2) and eight cardiovascular disease categories (Table 3). In these categories, we found 363,567 publications published from 2012 to October 2022 (362,878 categorized by MeSH metadata, 6,923 categorized by label imputation). All the publications had titles, 276,524 had abstracts, and 51,065 had the full text available. Overall, 584 of the 1,687 queried mitochondrial proteins were identified within the publications, while 3,284 of their 8,026 queried functionally related proteins were identified. In total, 14 unique proteins were identified with significant scores across all the disease categories, with a z-score threshold of 3.0 (Figure 5). The Reactome pathway analysis of these proteins revealed 12 pathways significant to all the diseases (Figure 6). All the proteins, pathways, diseases, and scores were integrated into a knowledge graph (Table 4). This knowledge graph was leveraged to predict 12,688 novel protein-disease associations and filtered with a probability score of 0.90 to yield 1,583 high-confidence predictions. A highlighted example of two protein-disease associations is shown in Figure 7, illustrated in the context of other relevant biological entities functionally related to the proteins. The model evaluation metrics are reported in Table 5.

Figure 1: Dynamic view of the workflow. This figure represents the four major steps in this workflow. First, relevant proteins are curated based on the user-provided GO terms (e.g., cellular components), and disease categories are prepared based on the user-provided disease MeSH identifiers. Second, associations between proteins and diseases are calculated in the text-mining step. Publications within a certain date range are downloaded and indexed. Disease-studying publications are identified (via MeSH labels and optionally via imputed labels), and their full texts are downloaded and indexed. Protein names are queried within the publications and used to calculate the protein-disease association scores. Next, following text-mining, these scores help identify the top protein and pathway associations. Finally, a knowledge graph is constructed encompassing these proteins, diseases, and their relationships within the biomedical knowledge base. Novel protein-disease associations are predicted based on the constructed knowledge graph. These steps use the most recently available data from the biomedical knowledge bases and PubMed. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Technical architecture of the workflow. The technical details of this workflow are illustrated in this figure. The user provides the MeSH tree numbers of the disease categories and GO term(s). Text documents are downloaded from PubMed, disease-relevant documents are identified based on the provided MeSH labels, and documents without topic-indicating MeSH labels receive imputed category labels. The proteins associated with the provided GO term(s) are acquired. This protein set is expanded to include proteins that are functionally related via protein-protein interactions, shared biological pathways, and transcription factor dependence. These proteins are queried within disease-relevant documents and scored by CaseOLAP. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: An example of a processed document. An example of a parsed, indexed text document is presented here. In order, relevant fields indicate the index name (_index, _type), the PubMed ID (_id, pmid), the document subsections (title, abstract, full_text, introduction, methods, results, discussion), and other metadata (year, MeSH, location, journal). For display purposes only, the document subsections are truncated with ellipses. The MeSH field contains the document topics, which may sometimes be provided by our label-imputation step. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Knowledge graph schema and biomedical resources. This figure depicts the knowledge graph schema. Each node and edge represents a node or edge type, respectively. The edges between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and proteins are weighted by CaseOLAP scores. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) edges are weighted by STRING confidence scores. The GRNdb/GTEx-derived transcription factor dependence (TFD) edges, MeSH-derived disease tree edges, and reactome-derived pathway edges are unweighted. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Top protein-disease associations. This figure presents mitochondrial proteins significant to each disease category. Z-score transformation was applied to the CaseOLAP scores within each category to identify significant proteins using a threshold of 3.0. (Top) Number of mitochondrial proteins significant to each disease: These violin plots depict the distribution of z-scores for proteins in each disease category. The total number of proteins significant to each disease category is shown above each violin plot. A total of 14 unique proteins were identified as significant across all the diseases, and some proteins were significant to multiple diseases. (Bottom) Top-scoring proteins: The heatmap displays the top 10 proteins that obtained the highest average z-scores across all the diseases. The blank values represent no obtained score between the protein and disease. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Top pathway-disease associations. This figure illustrates the top biological pathways associated with the studied disease categories, as determined via reactome pathway analysis. All the pathway analyses were filtered with p < 0.05. The heatmap values represent the average z-score of all the proteins within the pathway. (Top) Pathways conserved among all the diseases: Overall, 14 proteins were identified with relevance to all the disease categories, and 12 conserved pathways among all the disease categories were revealed. A dendrogram was constructed based on the pathway hierarchical structure to link the pathways with similar biological functions. The dendrogram height represents the relative depth within the pathway hierarchy; broad biological functions have longer limbs, and more specific pathways have shorter limbs. (Bottom) Pathways distinct to a disease category: Pathway analysis was performed using proteins achieving a significant z-score in each disease. The top three pathways with the lowest p-values associated with each disease are shown and indicated by asterisks. The pathways could be within the top three in multiple diseases. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Application of deep learning for knowledge graph completion. An example of applying deep learning to a disease-specific knowledge graph is presented in this figure. Hidden relationships between proteins and disease are predicted, and these are indicated in blue. Computed probabilities for both predictions are displayed, with values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 and with 1.0 indicating a strong prediction. Several proteins with known interactions are included, representing protein-protein interactions, transcription factor dependence, and shared biological pathways. For visualization, a subgraph of a few nodes with relevance to the highlighted example is shown. Key: IHD = ischemic heart disease; R-HSA-1430728 = metabolism; O14949 = cytochrome b-c1 complex subunit 8; P17568 = NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) 1 beta subcomplex subunit 7; Q9NYF8 Bcl-2-associated transcription factor 1, score: 7.24 x 10−7; P49821 = NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) flavoprotein 1, mitochondrial, score: 1.06 x 10−5; P31930 = cytochrome b-c1 complex subunit 1, mitochondrial, score: 4.98 x 10−5; P99999 = cytochrome c, score: 0.399. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Workflow and rate-limiting steps. This table presents rough estimates of the computational time for each stage of the workflow. Options to include components of the pipeline will change the total runtime needed to complete the analysis. The total time estimate varies depending on the computational resources available, including the hardware specifications and software settings. As a rough estimate, the protocol took 36 h of active runtime to execute on our computational server, with six cores, 32 Gb of RAM, and 2 Tb of storage, but this may be faster or slower on other devices. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 2: Automatic assembly of the cellular component proteins. This table shows the number of proteins associated with a given cellular component (i.e., GO term), proteins functionally related to them via protein-protein interactions (PPI), shared pathways (PW), and transcription factor dependence (TFD). The number of total proteins is the number of proteins from all the prior categories combined. All the functionally related proteins were obtained using CaseOLAP LIFT's default parameters. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 3: MeSH label-imputation statistics. This table displays the disease categories, the MeSH tree numbers used as the parent term of all the diseases included in the category, the number of PubMed articles found in each category from 2012-2022, and the number of additional articles included based on the label-imputation step. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 4: Knowledge graph construction statistics. This table describes the statistics for the size of the constructed knowledge graph, including the various nodes and edge types. The CaseOLAP scores represent the relationship between a protein and a cardiovascular disease (CVD) category. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 5: Knowledge graph prediction statistics and validations. This table reports the evaluation metrics for the knowledge graph link prediction of novel/hidden protein-disease associations. The knowledge graph edges were partitioned into 70/30 training and test datasets, and graph connectivity of the edges was preserved in both datasets. The accuracy indicates the proportion of predictions correctly classified, while the balanced accuracy corrects for class imbalance. The specificity indicates the proportion of negative predictions correctly classified. The precision indicates the proportion of correct positive predictions out of all the positive predictions, while the recall indicates the proportion of correct positive predictions out of all the positive edges (i.e., protein-disease associations identified via text-mining). The F1 score is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) describes how well the model distinguishes between positive and negative predictions, with 1.0 indicating a perfect classifier. The area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) measures the trade-off between precision and recall at varying probability thresholds, with higher values indicating better performance. Please click here to download this Table.