1: %For Discussion: advantage of including both gene-score signs in modules.

2: %In Methods IIA change notation w -> m., lose subscript g in Eq. (5)?

3: %E_perp -> E_C  and  E_0 -> E_G ?

4: %Figs. 1 and 2 are fine in black and white, and solid line for module 2 in 1(a).

5: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,notitlepage,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

6: %[aps,pre,preprint,notitlepage,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

7: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

8: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

9: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prl,aps]{revtex4}

10: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

11: %\topmargin-0.5in

12: %\textheight60pc

13: %\textwidth44pc

14: \newif\ifpdf\ifx\pdfoutput\undefined\pdffalse\else\pdfoutput=1\pdftrue\fi

15: \newcommand{\pdfgraphics}{\ifpdf\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.jpg}\else\fi}

16: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

17: \usepackage{color}

18: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}

19: \newcommand{\var}[1]{\mathrm{Var}\left({#1}\right)}

20: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|{#1}\right|}

21: \newcommand{\req}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

22: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

23: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}} 

24: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}

25: \newcommand{\beqar}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\eeqar}{\end{eqnarray}} 

27: \newcommand{\ignore}[1]{}

28: %\newcommand{\comment}[1]{#1}

29: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}

30: \newcommand{\nignore}[1]{}

31: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{{\bf #1}}

32: \newcommand{\mat}[1]{{\bf #1}}

33: \newcommand{\mr}[1]{{\mathrm{#1}}}

34: \newcommand{\WT}{\mathrm{WT}}

35: \newcommand{\OS}{\mathrm{SS}} 

36: %\newcommand{\MR}{M\!R}

37: \newcommand{\tmax}{t_{\rm{M}}}

38: \newcommand{\Tm}{{\bf M}}

39: \newcommand{\tm}{{\bf m}}

40: \newcommand{\transp}{^{\rm T}}

41: \newcommand{\tG}{t_{\rm G}}

42: %\newcommand{\NG}{N_{\rm G}}

43: \newcommand{\Eort}{\mat{E}_{\rm C}}

44: \newcommand{\Eorti}{\mat{E}_{\rm C,0}}

45: \newcommand{\Eg}{\mat{E}_{\rm G}}

46: %\newcommand{\choose}[2]{\left(\stackrel{#1}{#2}\right)}

47: \newcommand{\gene}[2]{{\fcolorbox{black}{fun#1}{\makebox[30pt]{#2$_{}^{}$}}}}

48: \definecolor{yel}{rgb}{1,1,0}

49: \newcommand{\moduleannotation}[1]{\mbox{\textcolor{yel}{#1}}}

50: \newcommand{\vspac}[1]{\begin{picture}(0,#1)(0,0)\end{picture}}

51: \newcommand{\genesize}{\tiny}

52: \newcommand{\modulesize}{\normalsize}

53: \newcommand{\moduletitlesize}{\large}

54: \newcommand{\module}[1]{\setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}\fbox{\begin{minipage}{3.200in}\begin{flushleft}#1\end{flushleft}\end{minipage}}}

55: %\newcommand{\xgdist}{35}

56: %\newcommand{\ygdist}{35}

57: %\newcommand{\gput}[2]{\put(0,35)}

58: %\newcommand{\gput}[2]{\put(#1\xgdist,#2\ygdist)}

59: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}

60: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

61:  

62: \definecolor{fun0}{rgb}{1,1,1}

63: \definecolor{black}{rgb}{0,0,0}

64: \definecolor{fun1}{rgb}{0.5,1,0.5}

65: \definecolor{fun2}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,1}

66: \definecolor{fun3}{rgb}{0.8,0.6,0.8}

67: \definecolor{fun4}{rgb}{1,0.5,0.6}

68: 

69: \begin{document}

70: \title{Finding regulatory modules through large-scale gene-expression data analysis} 

71: \author{Morten Kloster}

72: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544}

73: \affiliation{NEC Laboratories America, Inc., 4 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey 08540}

74: \author{Chao Tang}

75: \email[To whom correspondence should be adressed. E-mail:]{tang@nec-labs.com}

76: \affiliation{NEC Laboratories America, Inc., 4 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey 08540}

77: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Biology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}

78: \author{Ned Wingreen}

79: \affiliation{NEC Laboratories America, Inc., 4 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey 08540}

80: 

81: \date{\today}

82: 

83: \begin{abstract}

84: \end{abstract}

85: 

86: %\pacs{87.10.+e, 87.23.Kg}

87: 

88: \begin{abstract}

89: The use of gene microchips has enabled a rapid accumulation 

90: of gene-expression data.

91: One of the major challenges of analyzing this data is the diversity,

92: in both size and signal strength, of

93: the various modules in the gene regulatory networks of organisms. Based on

94: the Iterative Signature

95: Algorithm [Bergmann, S., Ihmels, J. \& Barkai, N. (2002) {\it Phys. Rev.

96: E} {\bf 67}, 031902],

97: we present an algorithm---the Progressive Iterative Signature Algorithm

98: (PISA)---that, by sequentially eliminating

99: modules, allows unsupervised identification of both large and 

100: small regulatory modules. We applied PISA to a large set of

101: yeast gene-expression data, and, using the Gene Ontology database

102: as a reference, found that the algorithm is much better able to 

103: identify regulatory modules than methods based on

104: high-throughput transcription-factor binding experiments or 

105: on comparative genomics.

106: \end{abstract}

107: 

108: \maketitle

109: 

110: \section{Introduction}

111: 

112: The introduction of DNA microarray technology has made it possible to

113: aquire vast 

114: amounts of gene expression data, raising the issue of how best to

115: extract information from this data.

116: While basic clustering algorithms have been successful at finding

117: genes 

118: that are coregulated for a small, specific set of experimental

119: conditions

120: ~\cite{Alon_Broad_patterns,Eisen_Cluster_analysis,Tamayo_Interpreting_patterns},

121: these algorithms are less effective when applied to large data sets due

122: to two

123: well-recognized limitations. First, standard clustering algorithms

124: assign each gene to a single cluster, while many genes in fact 

125: belong to multiple transcriptional 

126: regulons.~\cite{Bittner_Data_analysis,Cheng_Biclustering_of,Gasch_Exploring_the,SA}.

127: Second, each transcriptional regulon may only be active in a few

128: experiments, and the remaining experiments will only contribute to the

129: noise~\cite{Getz_Coupled_two-way,Cheng_Biclustering_of,SA}.

130: 

131: A number of approaches have been proposed to overcome one or both of

132: these problems

133: \cite{Getz_Coupled_two-way,Califano_Analysis_of,Cheng_Biclustering_of,Owen_Gene_Recommender,Gasch_Exploring_the,Lazzeroni_Plaid_Models}.

134: \ignore{

135: , including iteratively clustering on subsets of the

136: genes/conditions~\cite{Getz_Coupled_two-way}, searching for

137: patterns/submatrices

138: of the expression data with low mean squared

139: residue[MEANING?]~\cite{Califano_Analysis_of, Cheng_Biclustering_of},

140: complementing sets of query genes

141: based on ranks[MEANING?]~\cite{Owen_Gene_Recommender}, fuzzy

142: clustering~\cite{Gasch_Exploring_the} and plaid

143: models[MEANING?]~\cite{Lazzeroni_Plaid_Models}.

144: [WE NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHY THESE APPROACHES ARE NOT AS GOOD AS

145: SA/ISA -

146: CAN WE SAY THAT THESE CLUSTERING METHODS DON'T DIRECTLY EXPLOIT THE

147: BIOLOGY, I.E.

148: REGULONS CONTROLLED BY TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS, WITH MANY TO MANY

149: MAPPING?]

150: }

151: A particularly promising approach, the Signature Algorithm (SA) was

152: introduced in 2002 by Ihmels {\it et al.}~\cite{SA}. Based on input sets

153: of related genes, SA identifies ``transcription modules'' (TMs), {\it

154: i.e.} sets of coregulated genes along with the sets of conditions for

155: which the genes are strongly coregulated. 

156: SA is well grounded in the biology of gene regulation. Typically, a

157: single transcription factor regulates multiple genes; a TM naturally

158: corresponds to a set of such genes and the conditions under which the

159: transcription factor is active. The authors tested the algorithm on a

160: large data set for the yeast {\it Saccharomyces cerevisiae}. By applying

161: SA to various sets of genes that were known or believed to be related,

162: they identified a large number of TMs.

163: 

164: Soon after, Bergmann {\it et al.}~\cite{ISA} published the Iterative

165: Signature Algorithm (ISA), which uses the output of SA as the input for

166: additional runs of SA until a fixed point is reached. By applying ISA to

167: random input sets and varying the threshold coefficient $t_{\rm{G}}$

168: (see below), the authors found almost all the TMs that had been

169: identified using SA, as well as a number of new modules. Many of these

170: modules proved to be in excellent agreement with existing knowledge of

171: yeast gene regulation.

172: 

173: While ISA can identify many transcriptional regulons from

174: gene-expression data, the algorithm has significant limitations. The

175: modules found depend strongly on the value of a threshold coefficient

176: $\tG$ used in the algorithm. To find all the relevant modules, a large

177: range of threshold values must be considered, and for each threshold the

178: algorithm may find thousands of fixed points, many of which are

179: spurious. While the largest, strongest modules are easily identified,

180: among the smaller, weaker modules it is a major challenge to identify

181: the real transcriptional regulons. Weak modules can even be completely

182: ``absorbed" by stronger modules.

183: 

184: The performance limitations of ISA are related to a number of

185: algorithmic limitations. The need for a large range of thresholds is

186: partially due to the threshold definition, and the large number of fixed

187: points is due to the large positive feedback in the algorithm. The main

188: conceptual limitation of ISA, however, is that it only considers one

189: transcription module at a time. The algorithm does not use knowledge of

190: already identified modules to help it find new modules, and it may find

191: a strong module hundreds of times before it finds a given weak module.

192: An even worse case is shown in Fig.~\ref{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}: When a

193: strong and a weak module are coexpressed for a significant fraction of

194: conditions, it may be impossible to find the weak module by itself---ISA

195: will find only a single stable fixed point, dominated by the strong module.  

196: 

197: \begin{figure}

198: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{ToyExample3}

199: \caption{

200: A toy model with only two transcription modules.  (a) Module 1 is

201: upregulated under condition A, while module 2, a larger, stronger

202: module, is upregulated under conditions A and B. (b) Normalized

203: histograms of the gene scores given by the Signature Algorithm (SA) for

204: the background (solid fill), module 1 (solid line) and module 2 (dotted

205: fill), when using the true condition vector for either module 1 (condition A)

206: or module 2 (conditions A+B). Even starting with the true condition

207: vectors, SA does not resolve the two modules. Nor

208: can the Iterated Signature Algorithm (ISA) resolve module 1, even if it

209: receives the module itself as input gene set, as the genes from module 2

210: have higher scores also for condition A (there is only one fixed point

211: of ISA). Due to the background noise, 

212: it is also impossible to separate the modules

213: by varying the ISA gene threshold coefficient $\tG$.}

214: \label{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}

215: \end{figure}

216: 

217: A simple way to ensure that the same module is not found repeatedly is

218: to directly subtract the module from the expression

219: data, (this approach is used in~\cite{Lazzeroni_Plaid_Models}). A more

220: robust approach is to require the condition vector, {\it i.e.} the

221: weighted condition set, of each new transcription module to be

222: orthogonal to the condition vectors of all previously found modules. In

223: essence, this procedure corresponds to successively removing

224: transcription factors to reveal smaller and weaker transcription

225: modules. The successive removal of condition vectors is the central new

226: feature in our approach, and it is illustrated schematically in

227: Fig.~\ref{PISAtoyex}. We call the modified algorithm the Progressive

228: Iterative Signature Algorithm (PISA). Returning to the example in

229: Figs.~\ref{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}~and~\ref{PISAtoyex}, one finds that

230: PISA can easily identify both TMs: it first finds the strong module, 

231: removes its condition vector, and

232: then the only signal left is that of the weak module.

233: 

234: \begin{figure}

235: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{PISAExample3}

236: \caption{Once the Progressive Itererative Signature Algorithm (PISA) has

237: eliminated the combined module 1+2 from Fig.~\ref{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}

238: (dashed line), the remaining signal makes it easy to separate the genes

239: of module 1 from the genes of module 2. (a) Remaining signal for each

240: module. (b) Actual gene scores for the new fixed point found by PISA.

241: Genes of module 1 (solid line) have been separated from genes of module

242: 2 (dotted fill) and the background (solid fill).}

243: \label{PISAtoyex}

244: \end{figure}

245: 

246: Progressively eliminating transcription modules {\it \`{a} la} PISA can

247: also improve the prospects for finding unrelated modules. The gene

248: regulation from one module will contribute to the

249: background noise for all unrelated modules. Therefore, eliminating large,

250: strong modules can significantly improve the signal to noise ratio of

251: the remaining modules.

252: 

253: 

254: \section {Methods}

255: 

256: \subsection {The Algorithms SA/ISA}

257: 

258: We briefly review the algorithms SA and ISA.

259: \ignore{The algorithm is based on the assumption that the logarithmic

260: gene expression ratios for the organism in question are, to a rough

261: approximation, given by the sum of contributions from a number of

262: transcription modules (plus noise):}

263: A transcription module $\Tm$ can be specified by a condition vector

264: (``experiment signature") $\tm^{\rm C}$ and a gene vector (``gene

265: signature") $\tm^{\rm G}$, where nonzero entries in the vectors indicate

266: conditions/genes that belong to the transcription module (TM).

267: \ignore{The (presumed) contribution of $\Tm$ to the expression level of

268: a gene $g$ for condition $c$ is then simply the product of the

269: corresponding vector entries: $({\bf \Delta E}(\Tm))_{gc}=(\tm^{\rm

270: C})_c (\tm^{\rm G})_g$.}

271: 

272: Given an appropriately normalized\footnote{SA actually uses two matrices

273: with different normalizations~\cite{SA}.} matrix $\mat{E}$ of log-ratio

274: gene expression data \comment{[MORTEN - IS "LOG-RATIO GENE-EXPRESSION

275: DATA" STANDARD TERMINOLOGY?]}

276: and an input set $G_{\rm I}$ of genes, SA scores all the conditions in

277: the data set according to how much each condition upregulates the genes

278: in the input set (downregulation gives a negative score). The result is

279: a condition-score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$:

280: \beq

281:   \vect{s}^{\rm C} \equiv \frac{\mat{E}\transp \vect{m}_{\rm in}^{\rm

282: G}}{\abs{\vect{m}_{\rm in}^{\rm G}}},

283: \eeq

284: where $\mat{E}\transp$ is the transpose of $\mat{E}$ and

285: \beq

286: (\vect{m}_{\rm in}^{\rm{G}})_g=

287:   \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1\;\;\;\;\;& g\in G_I \\

288:     0 & g\notin G_I\end{array}

289:   \right.

290: \eeq

291: is the gene vector corresponding to the input set. The entries of

292: $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$ that are above/below a threshold $\pm t_{\rm{C}}$

293: constitute the condition vector $\tm^{\rm C}$:

294: \beq

295:   (\vect{m}^{\rm C})_c \equiv (\vect{s}^{\rm C})_c

296: \cdot\Theta(\abs{(\vect{s}^{\rm C})_c}-t_{\rm C}),

297: \eeq

298: where $\Theta(x)=1$ for $x\geq 0$ and $\Theta(x)=0$ for $x<0$.

299: 

300: Similarly, the gene-score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm G}$ measures how much

301: each gene is upregulated by the conditions in $\tm^{\rm C}$, using the

302: entries of $\tm^{\rm C}$ as weights:

303: \beq

304:   \vect{s}^{\rm G} \equiv \frac{\mat{E}\; \vect{m}^{\rm

305: C}}{\abs{\vect{m}^{\rm C}}}.

306:   \label{GeneScoreEq}

307: \eeq

308: The entries of the gene-score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm G}$ that are more

309: than $\tG$ standard deviations $\sigma_{\vect{s}^{\rm G}}^{_{}}$ above

310: the mean gene score in the vector $\vect{s}^{\rm G}$ constitute the gene

311: vector $\tm^{\rm G}$:

312: \beq

313:   (\vect{m}^{\rm G})_g \equiv (\vect{s}^{\rm G})_g

314: \cdot\Theta((\vect{s}^{\rm G})_g-\avg{(\vect{s}^{\rm G})_g}_g-t_{\rm

315: G}\sigma_{\vect{s}^{\rm G}}^{_{}})

316: \eeq

317: 

318: ISA uses $\vect{m}^{\rm G}$ as the input $\vect{m}_{\rm in}^{\rm G}$ for

319: the next iteration, {\it i.e.} the genes are now weighted according to

320: their gene scores, until a fixed point is reached.

321: 

322: \subsection {The Algorithm PISA}

323: 

324: 

325: \noindent {\it Orthogonalization.}

326: Within PISA, each condition-score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$ is required

327: to be orthogonal to the condition-score vectors of all previously found

328: transcription modules (TMs). Therefore, whenever PISA finds a TM and its

329: associated condition-score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$, the component

330: along $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$ of each gene is removed from the gene

331: expression matrix (see {\it Implementation of PISA} below). This

332: requirement of orthogonality in PISA conflicts with the condition-score

333: threshold as used in ISA. If we make the condition-score vector

334: orthogonal first and then apply the threshold, the vector will no longer

335: be orthogonal, whereas if we apply the threshold first,

336: orthogonalization will give nonzero weight to all conditions,

337: eliminating the noise-filtering benefit of thresholding. We have chosen

338: to eliminate the condition-score threshold completely. In any event,

339: conditions that in ISA would fall below the threshold will have low

340: weight and will give only a small contribution to the noise.\\

341: 

342: \noindent {\it The gene-score threshold.}

343: In ISA, to find all modules, it is necessary to run the algorithm with

344: many different threshold coefficients $\tG$.

345: \ignore{(in~\cite{ISA}, the authors used thresholds from 1.8 to 4.0,

346: but this is not enough to find all possible modules).}

347: For low thresholds one finds a few very large modules (many genes),

348: while for high thresholds one finds many small modules (few genes).

349: Without prior knowledge of the module one is searching for, it is

350: difficult to know what $\tG$ to use.

351: \ignore{This raises the issue of which value of the threshold to

352: use for PISA---}

353: Within PISA, we wish to find all the modules using a single threshold.

354: \ignore{which appears to be difficult. Fortunately, this problem is to a

355: large extent caused by}

356: This requires modifying the threshold definition. In ISA, the gene-score

357: threshold is $t_G \sigma^{\rm ISA}$ where the standard deviation

358: $\sigma^{\rm ISA}$ is computed using the full distribution of gene

359: scores, and includes contributions both from the background and from the

360: module of interest (Fig.~\ref{geneeffectivethresholdfig}). For large,

361: strong modules, the module contribution may be larger than the

362: background contribution. As a result, $\sigma^{\rm ISA}$ is module

363: dependent and $t_G$ must be adjusted to prevent false-positives from the

364: background.

365: 

366: 

367: 

368: 

369: %\begin{figure*}

370: \begin{figure}

371: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{StdDeviations3}

372: \caption{Means and standard deviations as used in ISA and in PISA

373: algorithms, calculated using all the genes (top bars) or only the non-module

374: genes (bottom bars). The mean $\avg{x}^{70\%}$ and standard deviation

375: $\sigma^{70\%}$ from PISA, using only the distribution within the

376: shortest interval that contains 70\% of all genes, are almost identical

377: to the ideal values $\avg{x}^{\rm bg}$ and $0.56\sigma^{\rm bg}$ of the

378: background noise (non-module genes). In ISA, the mean and standard

379: deviation are calculated from the whole distribution and so are strongly

380: module dependent.

381: \ignore{ is much larger. Within ISA, to get an effective threshold of

382: 4.0 $\sigma^{\rm bg}$ the nominal threshold must be $\approx 2.5

383: \sigma^{\rm ISA}$.}

384: This example uses generated data for a module of 300 genes out of 6206

385: total genes. The non-module genes have a normal distribution of

386: gene-expression levels.}

387: \label{geneeffectivethresholdfig}

388: \end{figure}

389: %\end{figure*}

390: 

391: We eliminate this problem in PISA by specifying the threshold relative

392: to the background, which we estimate using the mean, $\avg{x}^{\rm

393: 70\%}$, and the standard deviation, $\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$, of the gene

394: scores within the shortest interval that contains at least 70\% of all

395: the gene scores. By excluding extreme gene scores in this way, we

396: minimize the influence of the module on the means and standard

397: deviations of gene scores (Fig.~\ref{geneeffectivethresholdfig}). As a

398: test, we used $\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$ in place of $\sigma^{\rm ISA}$ in ISA

399: and found both very large and very small modules with a single value of

400: $t_G$.

401: 

402: We need to be conservative when selecting the gene-score threshold

403: because, if PISA misidentifies a module, elimination of its condition

404: vector can lead to errors in other modules. Therefore, the number of

405: genes included in modules due to noise should be very low. We have used

406: a threshold of $7.0\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$, which for a Gaussian distribution

407: corresponds to about $3.9\sigma$. The chance of including a gene due to

408: noise is about $10^{-4}$ per gene, {\it e.g.} with the 6206 genes in the

409: yeast data set, the average number of genes included by mistake in each

410: module would be about 0.62. Using a high threshold means that we may

411: miss genes that should belong to a module, however this is less risky

412: than including genes by mistake. As PISA proceeds by eliminating

413: condition-score vectors, it does not matter whether we identify all the

414: genes in a module, as long as the condition-score vector is accurate.

415: Once,

416: PISA has finished, we can easily see which genes would be included

417: when using various gene-score thresholds for the same condition-score

418: vector.

419: 

420: ISA only considers sets of genes that have {\it high} gene scores, {\it

421: i.e.} positive signs. As discussed in~\cite{SA}, this can lead to two

422: modules that are regulated by the same conditions but with opposite

423: sign. In contrast, PISA includes all genes with sufficiently extreme

424: scores in a single module, and the relative signs of gene scores specify

425: whether the genes are coregulated or counter-regulated.\\ 

426: 

427: 

428: \noindent {\it Implementation of PISA.}

429: To begin, PISA requires a matrix {\bf E} of log-ratio gene-expression

430: data, with zero average for each condition.

431: Two matrices are obtained from {\bf E}: The first $\Eg$ is

432: normalized for each gene 

433: $$\avg{(\Eg)_{gc}}_c=0,\;\;

434: \avg{(\Eg)_{gc}^2}_c=1\;\;\;\;\;\;\forall g\in G.$$

435: Normalization of $\Eg$ is essential so that the gene-score threshold

436: can be applied to all genes on an equal footing. 

437: The second matrix $\Eort$ is obtained from $\Eg$ by normalizing for

438: each condition, $ \avg{(\Eorti)_{gc}^2}_g=1$, 

439: where $\Eorti$ denotes the initial $\Eort$.

440: (Note that this is essentially the opposite of the notation used

441: in~\cite{SA}.)

442: We then apply a modified version of ISA, mISA (see below), a large

443: number of times (typically 10,000), and whenever mISA finds a module, we

444: remove from $\Eort$ the components along the module's condition score vector $\vect{s}^{\rm C}$:

445: \beq

446:   \Eort^{\mr{new}} \equiv \Eort- \Eort \frac{\vect{s}^{\rm{C}}

447: (\vect{s}^{\rm{C}})\transp}{\abs{\vect{s}^{\rm{C}}}^2}

448: \eeq

449: \ignore{The new matrix $\Eort^{\rm new}$, which is used for the next

450: applications of mISA, will still have zero average over genes $g$,

451: %\avg{(\Eort^{\rm new})_{gc}}_g = 0$, but the variance,

452: %\avg{(\Eort^{\rm new})2_{gc}}_g$, may be different for different

453: conditions $c$.}

454: 

455: \ignore {The matrix $\Eg$, which is used to calculate the gene scores,

456: stays properly normalized throughout the algorithm, thus the scores for

457: different genes will always be comparable. As we don't use a condition

458: threshold, we don't have to worry about whether or not the condition

459: scores, calculated using $\Eort$, are comparable or not.}

460: 

461: As mISA is repeatedly applied, new modules are found less and less

462: frequently. For example, one run of 10,000 applications of mISA found

463: 496 modules, and 287 of them were found in the first 1,000 applications.

464: \ignore{711 modules, and 504 of them were found in the first 2,000} 

465: As the later modules are also generally smaller and less reliable, the

466: exact number of times mISA is applied is not very important.\\

467: 

468: \noindent {\it mISA.}

469: As input, the modified Iterative Signature Algorithm (mISA) requires the

470: two matrices $\Eort$ and $\Eg$. We start each application of mISA by

471: generating a random set of genes $G_0$ and a corresponding gene vector

472: $\vect{m}_0^{\rm{G}}$:

473: \ignore{The number of genes in $G_0$ is currently a random number $2\leq

474: \abs{G_0}\leq 51$.}

475: 

476: $$(\vect{m}_0^{\rm{G}})_g=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1\;\;\;\;\;& g\in G_0

477: \\ 0 & 

478: g\notin 

479: G_0\end{array} \right.$$

480: Each iteration $i$ within mISA consists of multiplying the transpose of

481: $\Eort$ by the gene vector $\vect{m}_i^{\rm G}$ to produce the

482: condition-score vector $\vect{s}_i^{\rm C}$:

483: $$\vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}} \equiv \Eort\transp \vect{m}_{i}^{\rm{G}},$$

484: and then multiplying $\mat{E}_0$ by the normalized condition-score

485: vector to produce the gene-score vector $\vect{s}_i^{\rm G}$:

486: $$\vect{s}_i^{\rm{G}} \equiv \frac{\Eg 

487: \vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}}}{\abs{\vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}}}},$$

488: From $\vect{s}_i^{\rm G}$, one calculates the gene vector

489: $\vect{m}_{i+1}^{\rm G}$ for the next iteration:

490: $$(\vect{m}_{i+1}^{\rm{G}})_g \equiv (\vect{s}_i^{\rm{G}})_g\, 

491: \theta(|(\vect{s}_i^{\rm{G}})_g-\avg{(\vect{s}_i^{\rm{G}})_g}_g^{70\%}|-t_{\rm{G

492: }} 

493: \sigma_{\vect{s}^{\rm{G}}_i}^{70\%})$$

494: 

495: We iterate until: (a) $(\vect{m}^{\rm{G}}_i)_g$ and $(\vect{m}^{\rm{G}}_{i+1})_g$ have the same sign (0, + or -) for all $g$, (b) the iteration number is $i=20$, or (c) fewer than two genes have nonzero weight. If fewer than five genes have nonzero weight (for (a) or (b)), the result is discarded, otherwise we have found a module with condition-score vector

496: $\vect{s}^{\rm{C}}=\vect{s}^{\rm{C}}_i$, gene-score vector

497: $\vect{s}^{\rm{G}}=\vect{s}^{\rm{G}}_i$,  and gene vector

498: $\tm^{\rm{G}}=\vect{m}^{\rm{G}}_{i+1}$.

499: 

500: We chose a threshold coefficient $t_{\rm{G}} = 7.0$ so that the expected

501: number of genes included in each module due to background noise would be

502: less than one. However, with this high threshold, starting from a random

503: set of genes there was only a very low chance that two or more genes

504: would score above the threshold in the first iteration\footnote{This is

505: not an issue in ISA, where the condition threshold helps to pick out

506: the, possibly very small, signal from the noise.}. To increase the

507: chance of finding a module, we used a different formula for

508: $\vect{m}_{1}^{\rm{G}}$. Instead of selecting only genes with scores

509: above the threshold, we kept a random number $2\leq n\leq 51$ of the

510: genes with the most extreme scores. This procedure was generally

511: adequate to produce a correlated set of genes for the next iteration.\\

512: 

513: 

514: \noindent {\it Consistent modules.}

515: ISA typically finds many different fixed points corresponding to the

516: same module, each differing by a few genes. PISA only finds each module

517: once during a run, but the precise genes in the module depend on the

518: random input set of genes and also on which modules were already found

519: and eliminated. Furthermore, PISA sometimes finds a module by itself,

520: while other times it may find the module joined with another module, or

521: PISA may find only part of a module, or not find the module at all. To

522: get a reliable set of modules, it was necessary to perform a number of

523: runs of PISA and identify the modules that were consistent from run to

524: run. To identify consistent modules, we first tabulated preliminary

525: modules -- transcription modules found by individual runs of PISA. A

526: preliminary module contributes to a consistent module if the preliminary

527: module 

528: contains more than half the genes in the full module, regardless of

529: gene-score sign, 

530: and these genes constitute at least 20\% of the genes in the preliminary

531: module.

532: A gene is included in the consistent module if the gene occurs in more

533: than 50\% of the contributing

534: preliminary modules, always with the same gene-score sign. \\

535: 

536: \noindent{\it Correlations between condition-score vectors.}

537: Once we identified a consistent module, $\vect{m}^{\rm G}$, we

538: calculated the raw condition-score vector $\vect{r}=\Eorti \transp

539: \vect{m}^{\rm G}$, using the initial value of the gene-expression-data

540: matrix $\Eort$. From the $\vect{r}$'s we evaluated the condition

541: correlations

542: $\vect{r}\cdot\vect{r}^\prime/(\abs{\vect{r}}\abs{\vect{r}^\prime})$

543: between different modules. 

544: \ignore{(This correlation can %be much larger than the average correlation

545: between individual genes from the two modules, as we here average over

546: many genes, reducing the noise.)}

547: \ignore{(This correlation can be much larger that the average

548: correlation between individual genes from the two modules: For the

549: modules we have found for (1) iron (and other metals) metabolism and (2)

550: phosphate metabolism, the average correlation between genes is 0.0135,

551: while the correlation between the modules is 0.11. These values,

552: however, depend on the normalization used.)}

553: \\

554: 

555: \noindent Additional details are discussed in the supporting material.

556: \ignore{\noindent {\it Details.}[I'D PREFER TO SHORTEN THIS TO JUST

557: "ADDITIONAL

558: DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED IN 

559: THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL". INSTEAD OF PUTTING THIS IN ITS OWN SECTION,

560: CAN IT GO AT THE BOTTOM OF

561: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PISA SUBSECTION?]

562: There are some additional, relatively minor changes that we have made to

563: ISA,either to improve performance or to compensate for removing the

564: threshold $t_{\rm C}$. These are discussed in the supporting material.}

565: 

566: \subsection{$p$-Values}

567: 

568: Given a set containing $m$ genes out of the total of $N_{\rm G}$, the

569: $p$-value for having at least $n$ genes in common with a Gene Ontology

570: (GO) category containing $c$ of the $N_{\rm G}$ genes is

571: \beq

572:   p = \sum_{i=n}^{\min\{c,m\}} \frac{{{c}\choose{i}}{{N_{\rm

573: G}-c}\choose{m-i}}}{{{N_{\rm G}}\choose{m}}},

574: \eeq

575: \ignore{\beq

576:   p = 1-\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \frac{{{c}\choose{i}}{{N_{\rm

577: G}-c}\choose{m-i}}}{{{N_{\rm G}}\choose{m}}}.

578: \eeq}

579: We ignore any genes that are not present in our expression data when counting $c$.

580: 

581: 

582: \section{Results}

583: 

584: We applied PISA to the yeast data set used in~\cite{ISA}, which consists

585: of log-ratio gene-expression data for $N_{\rm G}=6206$ genes and $N_{\rm

586: C}=1011$ experimental conditions (approximately 10\% of the values are

587: missing or invalid). Normalization gives the matrices $\Eg$ and $\Eort$

588: (see Methods for details).

589: 

590: As a preliminary test, we repeatedly applied PISA to one fully scrambled

591: version of the matrix $\Eg$ 

592: (and the corresponding $\Eort$). From run to run, the algorithm

593: identified many large modules derived almost entirely 

594: from a single condition, as expected in light of the broad distribution

595: of the raw gene-expression data (Fig.~\ref{distributions} in supporting material). 

596: \ignore{This is not too surprising, as the distributions for raw expression

597: data

598: %%(Fig.~\ref{distributions}(a))

599: %and for normalized data

600: %%(Fig.~\ref{distributions}(b))

601: %both have long tails (Fig. 1 in supporting material), thus for modules

602: that derive from only a very small number of %conditions, the noise

603: statistics will be far from Gaussian (for most modules, the gene scores

604: are averages of many %contributions, and the noise will be Gaussian).

605: }

606: PISA also found many small modules, but these differed from one run to

607: the next.

608: We were able to eliminate both these classes of false positives using

609: filters for consistency, recurrence, and number of contributing

610: conditions (Fig.~\ref{modulequality} in supporting material).

611: 

612: 

613: We performed 30 runs of PISA on the yeast data set

614: \ignore{(the same data set used in~\cite{ISA})}

615: and identified the modules that appeared consistently, using the filters

616: derived above.

617: At the start of each run, only a few modules could be found with our

618: single choice of gene threshold $\tG$. Nevertheless, PISA did

619: consistently find new modules after eliminating others, demonstrating

620: that removing the condition vectors of found modules improves the 

621: signal to noise for the remaining ones.

622: 

623: For most of the modules we found, the genes were coregulated, {\it

624: i.e.} all the gene scores had the same sign. (In contrast, the modules

625: that were eliminated by the filters often had about equal numbers of

626: genes of either sign.) There were, however, a significant number of

627: modules with a few gene scores differing in sign from the rest, and a

628: few modules 

629: with many gene scores of both signs, {\it e.g.} the a/$\alpha$ pheromone

630: production/detection module. Furthermore, many of the modules found by

631: PISA agreed closely with modules identified by ISA at various

632: thresholds, while other PISA modules were subsets of ISA modules. Some

633: PISA modules, for example the de novo purine synthesis module

634: (Fig.~\ref{PurineModule}), were significantly more complete than the

635: ones found by ISA (at any threshold).

636: 

637: \begin{figure}

638: %\setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

639: %\fbox{

640: %\begin{minipage}{3.200in}

641: %\begin{flushleft}

642: \module{

643: \moduletitlesize

644: 

645: Module: De novo purine biosynthesis

646: \modulesize

647: 

648: \vspace{10pt}

649: Number of genes: 32

650: 

651: Average number of contributing conditions: 14.6

652: 

653: Consistency: 0.83

654: 

655: Best ISA overlap: 0.59 at threshold 5.0, frequency 16

656: 

657: \vspace{10pt}

658: \genesize

659: \begin{picture}(300,150)(0,0)

660: \ignore{

661:        MTD1  28  490.002

662:        ADE2  28  478.121

663: 

664:        SHM2  28  468.812

665:       ADE17  28  446.213

666:       ADE13  28  419.476

667:        ADE1  28  414.622

668:        GCV1  28  403.635

669:        ADE4  28  339.101

670:      ADE5,7  26  334.772

671:        CEM1  28  314.833

672:        GCV2  28  310.791

673:        SER1  28  310.702

674:     YGL186C  28  310.375

675:        GCV3  28  286.458

676:       ADE12  28  284.974

677:        HIS4  28  273.873

678:        ADE8  27  265.844

679:     YDR089W  27  243.694

680:        ADE6  25  235.064

681:        SER2  26  231.39

682:        SER3  26  228.487

683:       SER33  27  222.383

684:        ADE3  26  217.567

685:        MET6  26  204.301

686:     YPR004C  25  203.972

687:        AIP2  24  186.574

688:    ETF-BETA  23  153.927

689:        HIS7  21  135.631

690:        URA4  21  128.485

691:        SSU1  18  115.747

692:        HIS1  17  108.011

693:        HIS5  16  96.4565

694: }

695: \put(  65,  75){\gene{2}{GCV3}}

696: \put( 325, 125){\gene{1}{ADE1}}

697: \put( 195,  25){\gene{3}{HIS7}}

698: \put( 195,  75){\gene{3}{HIS4}}

699: \put(  65,  25){\gene{4}{AIP2}}

700: \put(   0, 100){\gene{2}{GCV1}}

701: \put( 325,  75){\gene{0}{YDR089W}}

702: \put( 260,  75){\gene{1}{ADE8}}

703: \put(   0,   0){\gene{3}{HIS1}}

704: \put( 195, 100){\gene{4}{CEM1}}

705: \put( 130,  50){\gene{2}{SER3}}

706: \put( 325,  50){\gene{2}{MET6}}

707: \put(   0,  75){\gene{1}{YGL186C}}

708: \put( 130, 100){\gene{1}{ADE5,7}}

709: \put(   0,  50){\gene{1}{ADE6}}

710: \put( 260,  50){\gene{1}{ADE3}}

711: \put( 130,  25){\gene{4}{ETF-BETA}}

712: \put(  65,  50){\gene{2}{SER2}}

713: \put( 195,  50){\gene{2}{SER33}}

714: \put(  65,   0){\gene{3}{HIS5}}

715: \put(   0, 125){\gene{2}{MTD1}}

716: \put( 130, 125){\gene{2}{SHM2}}

717: \put( 260, 125){\gene{1}{ADE13}}

718: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{URA4}}

719: \put( 195, 125){\gene{1}{ADE17}}

720: \put( 260, 100){\gene{2}{GCV2}}

721: \put(  65, 100){\gene{1}{ADE4}}

722: \put( 130,  75){\gene{1}{ADE12}}

723: \put(  65, 125){\gene{1}{ADE2}}

724: \put( 325, 100){\gene{2}{SER1}}

725: \put( 325,  25){\gene{4}{SSU1}}

726: \put(   0,  25){\gene{4}{YPR004C}}

727: \end{picture}

728: 

729: 

730: \vspace{20pt}

731: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

732: 

733: \vspace{5pt}

734: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Purine synthesis/transport \genesize

735: 

736: \vspace{5pt}

737: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Tetrahydrofolate activation \genesize

738: 

739: \vspace{5pt}

740: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Histidine biosynthesis \genesize

741: 

742: \vspace{5pt}

743: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

744: 

745: \vspace{10pt}

746: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Purine}

747: %\end{flushleft}

748: %\end{minipage}

749: }

750: \caption{The de novo purine synthesis module found with PISA.}

751: \label{PurineModule}

752: \end{figure}

753: 

754: 

755: \ignore{

756: We also find many modules that derive almost entirely from a single

757: condition. For these modules, the statistical propertiThis means that,

758: once the earlier modules had eliminated, the expression pattern caused

759: by this mutation was not similar to any other conditions. These modules

760: are not very reliable (as the the gene scores are hardly averaged at

761: all), and certainly don't have much relevance under physiological

762: conditions.

763: }

764: 

765: 

766: \begin{figure}

767: \begin{picture}(240,160)(0,0)

768: \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=3.375in]{ModuleCorrelations}}

769: \comment{\multiput (0,0)(0,10){16}{\line(1,0){2}}

770: \multiput (0,0)(10,0){24}{\line(0,1){2}}}

771: \put(42,10){\moduleannotation{$\left.\mbox{\vspac{10}}\right\}$Biosynthesis}}

772: \put(105,3.5){\moduleannotation{-Amino acid (general)}} % height*3.6, roughly

773: \put(190,7.1){\moduleannotation{-Arginine}}

774: \put(105,10.7){\moduleannotation{-Biotin}}

775: \put(190,14.3){\moduleannotation{-Lysine}}

776: \put(105,17.9){\moduleannotation{-De novo purine}}

777: \put(90,31){\moduleannotation{$\left.\mbox{\vspac{14}}\right\}$}}

778: \put(98,22){\rotatebox{90}{\moduleannotation{Stress}}}

779: \put(170,21.5){\moduleannotation{-Oxidative stress}}

780: \put(170,28.6){\moduleannotation{-Proteolysis}}

781: \put(170,35.8){\moduleannotation{-COS genes}}

782: \put(170,43.0){\moduleannotation{-S-S bond repair}}

783: \put(110,25.1){\moduleannotation{-AAD genes}}

784: \put(110,32.2){\moduleannotation{-Trehalose++}}

785: \put(110,39.4){\moduleannotation{-Heat shock}}

786: %\put(110,46.5){\moduleannotation{-Calmodulin}}

787: %\put(110,143.5){\moduleannotation{-Calmodulin}}

788: \put(105,95){\moduleannotation{Mating$\left\{\mbox{\vspac{8}}\right.$}}

789: \put(10,89.7){\moduleannotation{\makebox[90pt][r]{$\alpha$/a

790: difference-}}}

791: \put(10,96.8){\moduleannotation{\makebox[90pt][r]{Mating type a

792: genes-}}}

793: %\put(50,2){Amino acid biosynthesis}

794: %\put(90,6){Arginine biosynthesis}

795: %\put(50,10){Biotin synthesis \& transport}

796: \end{picture}

797: \caption{Correlations between modules identified by PISA. The modules

798: are ordered to form clusters: In the lower left corner are the main

799: amino acid biosynthesis module and several smaller, more specific

800: biosynthesis modules; the other main clusters are, roughly, stress

801: response, mating, and ribosomal proteins/rRNA processing.}

802: \label{Correlations}

803: \end{figure}

804: 

805: \ignore{Examples of correlated modules are: ribosomal proteins (104

806: genes) and RNA-related genes (144 genes)---correlation 0.76 and with no

807: common genes (in ISA, these modules are combined at sufficiently low

808: $\tG$). The protein synthesis module (104 genes) is correlated both with

809: de novo purine synthesis (28 genes) with 6 common

810: genes and a correlation of 0.51, and with nitrogen/sulfur metabolism (58

811: genes, correlation0.57), but the correlation between the last two

812: modules is only 0.30, {\it i.e.} they seem to be related only through

813: the protein-synthesis module.

814: }

815: 

816: \ignore{

817: The galactose induced module turns on GAL genes and also, as a weaker

818: effect, represses a number of hexose transporters. These hexose

819: transporters also occur in another module (which is consistently found

820: after the galactose induced module) which consists almost entirely of

821: hexose transporters, and this module also contains GAL2, the galactose

822: permease, but in this module it is coregulated with the other hexose

823: transporters, whereas they were counter-regulated in the galactose

824: induced module.

825: }

826: 

827: PISA found several small modules that agree very well with 

828: known gene regulation in yeast. For example, the arginine-biosynthesis

829: module

830: consists of ARG1, ARG3, ARG5,6, ARG8, CPA1, CTF13, and CAR2; out of

831: these

832: CAR2 has a negative gene score, {\it i.e.} it is counter-regulated

833: relative

834: to the others. The first five genes are precisely the arginine-synthesis

835: genes known to be repressed by arginine, while CAR2 and CAR1

836: (which is the 2nd highest scoring gene that failed to make the

837: threshold)

838: are catabolic genes known to be induced by

839: arginine~\cite{Messenguy_Regulation_Of}.

840: 

841: PISA also found a

842: zinc (zap1 regulated) module consisting of ZRT1, ZRT2, ZRT3, ZAP1,

843: YOL154, INO1, ADH4, and YNL254C. These are almost exactly the highest

844: scoring genes in a microarray experiment comparing expression under

845: zinc starvation of a zap1 mutant vs. wild

846: type~\cite{Lyons_Genome-wide_characterization}, however, our data set

847: does not include this or any other zinc starvation (or zap1 mutant)

848: experiment---indeed, there are no experimental conditions that have a

849: remarkably high score for this module, although conditions from the

850: Rosetta compendium~\cite{Rosetta}, most of which are deletion mutant

851: experiments, tend to have much higher scores than the other conditions

852: (see supporting material). This module, as well as the starvation

853: experiments in~\cite{Lyons_Genome-wide_characterization} and direct

854: transcription factor binding experiments (see below), all indicate that

855: YNL254C is regulated by zap1, and it probably has some function related

856: to zinc starvation/uptake.

857: 

858: In order to evaluate the overall performance of PISA, we compared our

859: modules to the categories in the Gene Ontology (GO) curated 

860: database~\cite{GO}. For the set of genes in each of our modules 

861: we calculated the $p$-value for the overlap with the set of genes in

862: every GO 

863: category (see Methods). The $p$-value is the probability that an 

864: observed overlap occurred by chance. The lowest $p$-value we found was

865: $3.5\cdot 10^{-216}$, for the GO category ``cytosolic ribosome'', 

866: and we found $p$-values

867: below $10^{-20}$ for more than 140 other GO categories. (The modules

868: that were

869: removed by our filters mostly did not have significant $p$-values, and

870: none were below $10^{-10}$).

871: We used the p-values between our PISA modules and the GO categories to

872: compare PISA 

873: to other means of identifying transcriptional modules. Specifically, we 

874: compared PISA to two different databases of genes predicted to be

875: regulated by single transcription factors. Database ``A'' contains

876: genes that were enriched through immunoprecipitation with tagged

877: transcriptional regulators~\cite{Lee_Transcriptional_Regulatory}, while

878: Database ``B'' has genes sharing regulatory sequences derived by

879: comparative genomics~\cite{Kellis_Sequencing_and}.

880: Figure~\ref{GOcomparisons} shows the $p$-values between GO and PISA

881: compared to

882: the $p$-values between GO and each of these two databases.\footnote{We

883: used an internal $p$-value threshold of

884: 0.001 for Database A, as suggested

885: in~\cite{Lee_Transcriptional_Regulatory}.} The lower $p$-values for PISA

886: indicate a consistently

887: better agreement between GO and PISA than between GO and the other

888: databases. For a few GO categories

889: Database B has a lower $p$-value than PISA, but these categories are all

890: close to the root of the GO tree 

891: and each contains more than half the genes in yeast.

892: 

893: 

894: 

895: \begin{figure}

896: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{GOcomparisons_log3}

897: \caption{Best $p$-values onto every Gene Ontology (GO) category.

898: In each panel, we include only GO categories for which at least one

899: $p$-value is below

900: $10^{-10}$. (a) PISA vs. Database A. (b) PISA vs. Database B. (a) inset:

901: Database A vs.

902: database B---there are very few GO categories onto which both A and B

903: have

904: low $p$-values.}

905: \label{GOcomparisons}

906: \end{figure}

907: 

908: 

909: Compared to microarray data, both Database A and Database B 

910: have a clear disadvantage: their binding sites are assigned to

911: intergenic

912: regions, and if the two genes bordering an intergenic region are

913: divergently transcribed, then the databases do not identify which of the 

914: genes is regulated. In many cases, we found that by comparing sets of

915: genes in database A to PISA modules, we

916: could decide which of divergently transcribed genes were

917: actually regulated. For example, Database A lists 6 intergenic regions

918: as binding site for zap1 at an internal $p$-value threshold of $10^{-5}$,

919: and 4 of these lie 

920: between divergently transcribed genes. However, 5 of the 6 intergenic

921: regions border the genes

922: ZRT1, ZRT2, ZRT3, ZAP1, and YNL254C which PISA identifies as part of the

923: zinc module.

924: 

925: Database A appears to have an additional source of false positives.

926: Intergenic regions that are close to intergenic regions with very low

927: $p$-values often have low $p$-values themselves, even when there is no

928: apparent connection between the genes and no evidence of a binding site in

929: the DNA sequence.  For example, for the de novo purine-biosynthesis

930: module, which is primarily regulated by the bas1 transcription factor,

931: the intergenic region controlling GCV2 has the lowest $p$-value within

932: Database A, $1.1\cdot 10^{-16}$, and all the four closest intergenic 

933: regions have $p$-values below $10^{-5}$. Comparison to PISA 

934: modules can help eliminate these potential false positives: 

935: out of the 29 genes assigned a $p$-value below $10^{-4}$ for bas1 

936: binding in database A, 13 belong to a single PISA module, 

937: 4 others are divergently transcribed adjacent genes, and 6 others 

938: are genes transcribed from nearby intergenic regions. 

939: 

940: %and the 

941: %remaining 6 genes are 3 pairs of divergently transcribed genes 

942: %that we can not explain.

943: 

944: 

945: \ignore{

946: The agreement between the PISA modules and the two databases was mixed,

947: however the PISA modules agreed significantly better with database B

948: than the two databases did with each other. (Note that while both of the

949: databases attempt to identify genes that bind single transcription

950: factors, the PISA modules are effective modules, i.e. they may involve

951: combinatorial patterns of many transcription factors, and we should not

952: expect perfect agreement with the databases.) While some modules show

953: excellent agreement with database B (e.g. the ribosomal proteins

954: module), other modules (e.g. phosphate starvation), while clearly very

955: good, have no significant overlap with the databases. The agreement with

956: the database B was much better for the modules that we kept than for the

957: modules that were discarded by the filters: The geometric average of the

958: probability of the most significant overlap was $10^{-6}$ for the

959: modules we kept, but only 1/58 for the modules that were discarded (when

960: comparing to 113 different database sets).

961: }

962: 

963: 

964: \section{Discussion}

965: 

966: The Progressive Iterative Signature Algorithm

967: (PISA) embodies a new approach to analysis of large gene-expression 

968: data sets. The central new feature in PISA is the robust elimination 

969: of transcription modules as they are found, by removing their 

970: condition-score vectors. Also new to PISA, compared to its 

971: precursors SA \cite{SA} and ISA \cite{ISA}, is the inclusion of both 

972: coregulated and counter-regulated genes in a single module, and the

973: use of a single gene-score threshold.

974: 

975: Altogether, these new features result in an algorithm that 

976: can reliably identify both large and small regulatory modules, 

977: without supervision. We confirmed the performance of PISA by

978: comparison to the Gene Ontology (GO) database -- PISA performed

979: considerably better against GO than either high-throughput 

980: binding experiments or comparative genomics. PISA therefore 

981: provides a practical means to identify new regulatory modules

982: and to add new genes to known modules. 

983: 

984: %At one level, the modular organization of gene regulation in

985: %an organism can be viewed simply as its ``wiring diagram''. 

986: %However, at a deeper level, this organization must reflect

987: %the organism's physiology. 

988: 

989: Can PISA shed any light on the organization of gene expression 

990: beyond the level of individual transcription modules?

991: In~\cite{ISA}, the authors argued that they could trace the relationship

992: between modules from the effects of changing the threshold $\tG$. For

993: instance, a large module might split into two smaller ones as $\tG$ was

994: increased. With PISA, we were able to use a more direct approach. Once

995: we identified the modules, we computed the ``raw" ({\it i.e.}

996: pre-eliminations) condition-score vector

997: $\vect{r}$ for each module, and from these raw condition-score vectors,

998: we evaluated the condition correlations between modules (see Methods). 

999: Figure~\ref{Correlations} shows the condition correlations between 40 of

1000: the

1001: modules that we can put a name to. A large, positive correlation between

1002: two modules can either indicate that the modules have many genes in

1003: common, {\it e.g.} the genes of the arginine-biosynthesis module are

1004: essentially a subset of the genes of the amino-acid-biosynthesis module, 

1005: or, as in the toy model in 

1006: Figs.~\ref{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}~and~\ref{PISAtoyex},

1007: the modules have few/no genes in common, but the two

1008: sets of genes are similarly regulated under many

1009: conditions. In the toy model, the raw condition-score vectors

1010: $\vect{r}_1$ and $\vect{r}_2$ correspond to the vectors in

1011: Fig.~\ref{AbsorbedFixedPointFig}(a) and their correlation,

1012: $\vect{r_1}\cdot\vect{r_2}/(\abs{\vect{r_1}}\abs{\vect{r_2}})$,

1013: is simply the cosine of the angle between them.

1014: A real example of this second type of correlation is provided by 

1015: the ribosomal-protein module (104 genes) and the rRNA-processing module

1016: (144 genes). They have no genes in

1017: common, but the correlation between them is very high, 0.76.

1018: 

1019: \ignore{The ribosomal proteins module (136 genes) and the rRNA

1020: processing module (102 genes) are a good example of the latter: They

1021: have no genes in common, but the correlation between them is

1022: 0.73\ignore{Average correlation between genes is 0.52}.}

1023: 

1024: Out of the 6206 genes included in the expression data, 2626 genes appeared in at least one module, and 923 genes appeared in more than one module\footnote{We have adjusted for the facted that for some modules there are several versions that are very similar.}. No genes appeared in more than 4 different modules.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \ignore{\section{Medical Applications}

1028: 

1029: The module-finding algorithms discussed here, including SA/ISA and

1030: PISA have potential applications in medicine. The ``conditions'' in

1031: which gene-expression data is obtained can equally well represent

1032: different tissues and/or different patients. Application of the

1033: algorithms in these cases could help uncover ``disease modules'',

1034: {\it i.e.} sets of genes coregulated in certain tissues 

1035: under certain disease conditions. Knowledge of these modules could

1036: prove valuable in diagnosis and treatment of the disease conditions.

1037: For example, the gene-expression profile of a new patient could

1038: be scanned for patterns of expression corresponding to previously

1039: identified disease modules. This would directly aid in disease

1040: diagnosis. Very accurate diagnosis obtained in this way could help 

1041: guide treatment protocols, particularly if a database of diagnoses,

1042: treatments, and outcomes for previous patients was available for

1043: reference.

1044: }

1045: 

1046: \section{Acknowledgements}

1047: 

1048: We wish to thank J. Ihmels and N. Barkai for sharing their data set,

1049: and Rahul Kulkarni for valuable discussions.

1050: 

1051: C.T. acknowledges support from the National Key Basic Research Project

1052: of China (No. 2003CB715900).

1053: 

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: \ignore{This breaks the symmetry between genes and conditions, as

1058: pointed out

1059: in~\cite{Barkai2}, but in reality genes and conditions are not

1060: symmetrical

1061: at all: Each gene belongs to a fixed (and presumably fairly small)

1062: set of transcription modules, while the conditions are whatever the

1063: experiment design says - they could affect very few or very many

1064: modules.

1065: If the experiments from which the data is collected, generally affect

1066: only

1067: a few modules each, then thresholding on condition scores makes sense.

1068: If, however, the experiments are designed to affect many modules

1069: simultaneously, in different combinations (note that this gives the most

1070: information from the least number of experiments, although that

1071: information

1072: is not easily extracted just by looking at the data), then thresholding

1073: the

1074: condition scores is not a good idea.}

1075: 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: 

1079: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1080: 

1081: \bibitem{Eisen_Cluster_analysis}

1082: Eisen, M.B., Spellman, P.T., Brown, P.O. \& Botstein, D. (1998) {\it

1083: Proc.

1084: Natl. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 95}, 14863-14868.

1085: 

1086: \bibitem{Alon_Broad_patterns}

1087: Alon, U., Barkai, N., Notterman, D.A., Gish, K., Ybarra, S., Mack, D. \&

1088: Levine, A.J. (1999) {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 96}, 6745-6750.

1089: 

1090: \bibitem{Tamayo_Interpreting_patterns}

1091: Tamayo, P., Slonim, D., Mesirov, J., Zhu, Q., Kitareewan, S.,

1092: Dmitrovsky, E., Lander, E.S. \& Golub, T.R. (1999) {\it Proc. Natl.

1093: Acad.

1094: Sci.} {\bf 96}, 2907-2912.

1095: 

1096: \bibitem{Bittner_Data_analysis}

1097: Bittner, M., Meltzer, P. \& Trent, J. (1999) {\it Nature Genet.} {\bf

1098: 22},

1099: 213-215.

1100: 

1101: \bibitem{Getz_Coupled_two-way}

1102: Getz, G., Levine, E. \& Domany, E. (2000) {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.}

1103: {\bf

1104: 97}, 12079-12084.

1105: 

1106: \bibitem{Califano_Analysis_of}

1107: Califano, A., Stolovitzky, G. \& Tu, Y. (2000) {\it ISMB} {\bf 8},

1108: 75-85.

1109: 

1110: \bibitem{Cheng_Biclustering_of}

1111: Cheng, Y. \& Church, G. (2000) {\it Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol.

1112: Biol.} {\bf 8}, 93-103.

1113: 

1114: \bibitem{Gasch_Exploring_the}

1115: Gasch, A. \& Eisen, M.B. (2002) {\it Gen. Biol.} {\bf

1116: 3(11)}:research0059.1-0059.22.

1117: 

1118: \bibitem{Owen_Gene_Recommender}

1119: Owen, A.B., Stuart, J., Mach, K., Villeneuve, A.M. \& Kim, S. (2003)

1120: {\it Gen. Res.} {\bf 13}, 1828-1837.

1121: 

1122: \bibitem{Lazzeroni_Plaid_Models}

1123: Lazzeroni, L. \& Owen, A. (2002) {\it Statistica Sinica}, {\bf 12(1)},

1124: 61-86.

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{SA}

1127: Ihmels, J., Friedlander, G., Bergmann, S., Sarig, O., Ziv, Y. \& Barkai,

1128: N. (2002)

1129: {\it Nature Genet.} {\bf 31}, 370-377.

1130: 

1131: \bibitem{ISA}

1132: Bergmann, S., Ihmels, J. \& Barkai, N. (2002) {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf

1133: 67}, 031902.

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{Lee_Transcriptional_Regulatory}

1136: Lee, T. I. {\it et al.} (2002), {\it Science} {\bf 298}, 799-804.

1137: 

1138: \bibitem{Kellis_Sequencing_and}

1139: Kellis, M., Patterson, N., Endrizzi, M., Birren, B. \& Lander, E. S.

1140: (2003)

1141: {\it Nature} {\bf 423}, 241-254.

1142: 

1143: \bibitem{Lyons_Genome-wide_characterization}

1144: Lyons, T. J., Gasch, A. P., Gaither, L. A., Botstein, D., Brown, P. O.

1145: \& Eide, D. J. (2000), {\it Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 97}, 7957-7962.

1146: 

1147: \bibitem{Rosetta}

1148: Hughes, T. R. {\it et al.} (2000) {\it Cell} {\bf 102}, 109-126.

1149: 

1150: \bibitem{GO}

1151: The Gene Ontology Consortium (2001) {\it Genome Res.} {\bf 11},

1152: 1425-1433.

1153: 

1154: \bibitem{Messenguy_Regulation_Of}

1155: Messenguy, F. \& Dubois, E. (2000) {\it Food tech. biotech.} {\bf 38}

1156: 277-285.

1157: 

1158: \end{thebibliography}

1159: 

1160: 

1161: 

1162: 

1163: 

1164: \clearpage

1165: \setcounter{figure}{0}

1166: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1167: \setcounter{section}{0}

1168: \renewcommand{\thesection}{}

1169: \renewcommand{\thefigure}{S\arabic{figure}}

1170: \renewcommand{\theequation}{S\arabic{equation}}

1171: \section{Supporting material}

1172: 

1173: \subsection{Normalization}

1174: 

1175: Here we review in detail the normalization procedure employed in PISA. The most obvious requirement for the normalization is that scores for different genes must be comparable. The procedure itself is as follows: Given a matrix $\mat{E}$ of log-ratio gene-expression data, we first set the average to zero for each condition,

1176: \beq

1177:   (\mat{E}^\prime)_{gc} = (\mat{E})_{gc}-\avg{(\mat{E})_{g^\prime c}}_{g^\prime},

1178:   \label{RemoveConditionAverage}

1179: \eeq

1180: and then normalize to zero mean and unit variance for each gene, giving $\Eg$, which is used in PISA to calculate gene scores:

1181: \beqar

1182:   (\mat{E}^{\prime\prime})_{gc} & = & (\mat{E^\prime})_{gc}-\avg{(\mat{E^\prime})_{gc^\prime}}_{c^\prime} \label{RemoveGeneAverage} \\

1183:   (\Eg)_{gc} & = & (\mat{E}^{\prime\prime})_{gc}/\sqrt{\avg{(\mat{E}^{\prime\prime})_{gc^\prime}^2}_{c^\prime}}.

1184:   \label{NormalizeByGene}

1185: \eeqar

1186: For this normalization to be consistent through the iterations in mISA, the different condition scores must also be comparable. To get the initial value $\Eorti$ of the matrix used to calculate condition scores, we divide $\Eg$ by the rms value for each condition:

1187: \beq

1188:   (\Eorti)_{gc} = (\Eg)_{gc}/\sqrt{\avg{(\Eg)_{g^\prime c}^2}_{g^\prime}}.

1189:   \label{NormalizeByCondition}

1190: \eeq

1191: 

1192: Note that a simple approach would be to normalize for both genes and conditions simultaneously and thus use only a single set of data\footnote{If $\Eg=\Eorti$ initially, then it is equivalent to keep $\Eg$ constant or use $\Eg=\Eort$, which is updated every time PISA finds a module.}---this could be easily accomplished by alternately normalizing over conditions and genes a few times; the data converge quickly. There is, however, a risk of losing significant features of the data through excessive normalization. For some conditions, the typical change in expression levels may be very large, while for others it may be negligible, and it would be misleading to always normalize these to the same level; at the very least, this would give a lower signal to noise ratio. Therefore, we have chosen to normalize $\Eg$ over genes but not conditions, allowing conditions with large changes in expression level to make a proportionately larger contribution to gene scores. For genes, however, it is reasonable to always normalize to the same level. If two genes are in the same module, then there is little reason to consider the gene with the larger dynamical range to be more reliable than the other. That is why we use $\Eg$ to calculate $\Eorti$.

1193: 

1194: Also note a the difference between genes and conditions: The variance for a gene often depends on a small number of outlying values, and normalizing over genes prevents these from dominating. In contrast, the variance for a condition typically depends on many genes, and as such is a far more reliable quantity.

1195: 

1196: \ignore{

1197: In~\cite{SA,ISA}, the authors used separate matrices for calculating gene scores and condition scores, due to the different requirements: When calculating gene scores, the data must be normalized, with zero mean and unit average, for each gene, in order for the scores for all the different genes to be comparable to the threshold. Similarly, the data used for calculating conditions scores must be normalized for each condition. A somewhat disturbing consequence of this approach is that some data points end up with different signs in the two matrices, {\it i.e.} the normalized data sets contradict each other! (Both values are typically very small in these cases.) One way to avoid this would be to normalize for both genes and conditions simultaneously and thus use only a single set of data---this is easily accomplished by alternately normalizing over conditions and genes a few times; the data converge quickly.

1198: }

1199: 

1200: 

1201: \subsection{Avoiding Positive Feedback}

1202: 

1203: The basic principle of SA, or an iteration of ISA/mISA, is to find the set of genes whose expression profiles most resemble those of the genes in the input set, either for all conditions (mISA) or for a selected subset of conditions (SA/ISA). Of course, the gene whose expression profile most resembles that of a given gene is the gene itself, thus

1204: \ignore{Ignoring the difference between $\Eort$ and $\Eg$, the gene scores $(\vect{s}_i^{\rm G})_g$ for iteration $i$ in mISA are proportional to the weighted sums of the correlations between gene $g$ and all the genes in the input set $\vect{m}_i^{\rm G}$ for that iteration. Thus,}

1205: there is a potential for significant positive feedback. Adding one gene to the input set would typically increase the score of that gene far more than the score of any other gene. As a consequence of positive feedback, adding one gene to the gene vector of a fixed point would have a considerable chance of yielding another fixed point, and a small set of genes could be a fixed point even if the genes were completely uncorrelated.

1206: 

1207: In PISA, we only find each module (or combination) once for each run, and it is important to be as certain as possible that we have the correct genes. We avoid positive feedback by using leave-one-out scoring for genes that had nonzero weight at the start of the iteration, {\it i.e.} we remove the contribution from gene $g$ from the condition scores $\vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}}$ before we use these scores to calculate the new score for gene $g$:

1208: 

1209: $$(\vect{s}_i^{\rm{G}})_g \equiv

1210: \frac{(\Eg)_{g\_} 

1211: (\vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}}-[\Eort\transp)_{\_g}(\vect{m}_i^{\rm{G}})_g]} 

1212: {\abs{\vect{s}_i^{\rm{C}}-(\Eort\transp)_{\_g}(\vect{m}_i^{\rm{G}})_g}},$$

1213: where $(\mat{A})_{j\_}$ is row $j$ of matrix $\mat{A}$, and $(\mat{A})_{\_j}$ is column $j$ of matrix $\mat{A}$. With a Gaussian distribution of the background noise, this approach is very close to neutral, {\it i.e.} adding a gene will neither affect that gene's score, nor will it significantly change $\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$ of the gene-score distribution.

1214: 

1215: Without positive feedback, fixed points may be marginally stable (or even unstable, {\it i.e.} a limit cycle), thus we do not require a true fixed point; we accept any gene vector reached after 20 iterations in mISA, as long as it contains at least 5 genes.

1216: 

1217: In SA/ISA, the authors do not eliminate positive feedback. Indeed it would be difficult to do so, as adding/removing a gene can change which conditions have scores exceeding the condition threshold. Apart from this complication, the feedback in SA/ISA is proportional to the number of conditions that make the threshold. For small modules, typically only a small fraction of the conditions have scores above the threshold, thus the feedback is lower than it would have been for PISA, which includes all conditions. For large modules, the feedback is only a minor effect in the first place. Nevertheless, the total number of fixed points for ISA is huge due to positive feedback---at a gene threshold coefficient $\tG=4.0$, there are, at a minimum, more than a million fixed points.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: \subsection{Filters}

1221: 

1222: We chose the gene-score threshold as $7.0\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$ so that, on average, less than one gene would be included in a module purely due to background noise. This estimate assumed that the background noise had a Gaussian distribution. For most modules, the gene scores are the sums of contributions from many different conditions, and if these contributions are independent, as they should be for background noise, then the total background noise will have approximately a Gaussian distribution, regardless of the distribution for a single condition (central limit theorem). For modules that derive almost entirely from one or very few conditions, however, the distribution of gene scores may not be Gaussian.

1223: 

1224: While we do not know the true distribution of the background noise, it is reasonable to use the full distribution of the data as a worst case scenario. As shown in Fig.~\ref{distributions}, this distribution is far from Gaussian: it has a fairly sharp cusp at zero and long tails, even after normalization. For this distribution, more than 3.5\% of the values are outside the threshold $\pm 7.0\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$ (this is partially because the long tails contain many genes, and partially because $\sigma^{\rm 70\%}$ is small due to the sharp cusp), {\it i.e.} with a gene-expression matrix randomly drawn from this distribution, for any single condition one would expect to find a module with about 200 genes!

1225: 

1226: \begin{figure}[htb]

1227: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{DataDistributions}

1228: \caption{Distributions of the yeast microarray data used

1229: (6206 genes/ORFs, 1011 conditions). Roughly 10\% of the data was

1230: invalid/missing

1231: (not included in the distributions). The distribution is sharply cusped

1232: and

1233: has long tails, both before and after normalization (Eqs.~\ref{RemoveConditionAverage}--\ref{NormalizeByGene}).}

1234: \label{distributions}

1235: \end{figure}

1236: 

1237: We applied PISA to a matrix $\Eg$ that had been fully scrambled after normalization\footnote{Scrambling the matrix {\it after} normalization ensured that the distribution remained the same. The data were no longer exactly normalized for each gene, but the deviations were insignificant. Scrambling the data before normalization gave similar results.}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{modulequality}, PISA found many large modules that were based almost entirely on a single condition (however, as the modules were not based on {\it only} one condition, they were not as large as our estimate of 200, above), whereas modules based on many conditions were much smaller. We also applied PISA to a random matrix generated from a Gaussian distribution, and in that case PISA did not find any large modules (in 30 runs, PISA found 8 modules with 20 or more genes; the largest contained 26 genes). In both cases, the small modules found by PISA varied from run to run.

1238: 

1239: \comment{[This is an even more severe problem for ISA: As they use a condition-score threshold, it is possible to find modules that {\it really} depend on only a very few conditions. ISA ignores any module that does not have at least 5 (I think) conditions with at least 70\% (I think) of the score of the highest-scoring condition---this is (in my opinion) a somewhat more arbitrary way to implement a similar filter, and they don't say why they do this.]}

1240: 

1241: \begin{figure}[b]

1242: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{ModulesQuality2}

1243: \caption{The number of genes $n_{\Tm}^{\rm G}$ in a module $\Tm$ and the number of contributing conditions $n_{\Tm}^{\rm C}$ (see text) were two of the properties we used in our filters to eliminate false modules. PISA applied to a scrambled expression matrix (black) only yielded modules close to the axes (small $n_{\Tm}^{\rm G}$ or small $n_{\Tm}^{\rm C}$), while PISA run on the real data (green) yielded modules with both large $n_{\Tm}^{\rm G}$ and large $n_{\Tm}^{\rm C}$.}

1244: \label{modulequality}

1245: \end{figure}

1246: 

1247: In order to eliminate these false modules we introduced a set of filters. For each preliminary module $\Tm$ we calculate the ``number of contributing conditions", given as $n_{\Tm}^{\rm C} = \sum_{c}(\vect{s}^{\rm C})_c^2/(\max\{(\vect{s}^{\rm C})_c\})^2$. We ignored any module for which the median of the numbers of contributing conditions for its preliminary modules was below 6 (this threshold worked well; it is somewhat above the threshold required to remove the false positives for the scrambled matrix). We also ignored all modules that had fewer than 5 genes or fewer than 5 contributing preliminary modules, and for modules with fewer than 10 genes we required that the ``consistency", defined as the average fraction of the genes in the preliminary modules that are in the full module, was above 0.55 (during post processing, we required that this fraction was above 0.2 for {\it each} preliminary module). These filters removed all but one of the modules found by PISA when applied to the scrambled matrix.

1248: 

1249: 

1250: \ignore{

1251: \subsection{More Results}

1252: 

1253: We here discuss the modules found by PISA in more detail. A total of 260 different modules passed our filters, however some of these were very similar to each other. We assigned each module a weight according to how much overlap there was with other modules that passed the filter, and using this weight, the modules we found roughly correspond to 143 unrelated modules. Figure~\ref{ModuleSizeDistribution} shows the distribution of modules sizes.

1254: 

1255: \begin{figure}[htb]

1256: \includegraphics[width=3.375in]{ModuleSizeDistribution}

1257: \caption{The distribution of sizes of modules found by PISA.}

1258: \label{ModuleSizeDistribution}

1259: \end{figure}

1260: 

1261: 

1262: \comment{[HOW TO TAKE DATA?]}

1263: }

1264: 

1265: 

1266: \begin{table*}[h]

1267: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1268: \hline

1269:  & \# & \# & & Over.& Best & \\

1270: Function & genes & cond. & Cons. & w/ISA & $t_{\rm G}$ & Freq.\\ \hline

1271: Amino acid biosynthesis & 96 & 31.2 & 0.83 & 0.89 & 3.7 & 10090 \\

1272: Arginine biosynthesis & 6 & 5.7 & 0.72 & 0.83 & 6.0 & 60 \\

1273: Biotin synthesis \& transport & 6 & 6.5 & 0.80 & 0.67 & 5.5 & 7 \\

1274: Lysine biosynthesis & 11 & 9.0 & 0.82 & 0.82 & 4.6 & 10 \\

1275: De novo purine biosynthesis & 32 & 13.1 & 0.83 & 0.59 & 5.0 & 16 \\

1276: Oxidative stress response & 69 & 23.8 & 0.91 & 0.32 & 3.4 & (1) \\

1277: Aryl alcohol dehydrogenases & 6 & 15.4 & 0.62 & 0.83 & 4.9 & 8 \\

1278: Proteolysis & 27 & 82.1 & 0.80 & 0.86 & 3.6 & 1661 \\

1279: Trehalose \& hexose metabolism/conversion & 21 & 34.9 & 0.55 & 0.67 &

1280: 3.2 & 910 \\

1281: COS genes & 11 & 9.2 & 0.49 & 1.00 & 3.3 & 756 \\

1282: Heat shock & 52 & 42.8 & 0.78 & 0.38 & 3.2 & (1) \\

1283: Repair of disulphide bonds & 26 & 41.6 & 0.73 & 0.58 & 3.5 & 15 \\

1284: Calcium-calmodulin related & 41 & 32.5 & 0.78 & 0.73 & 3.0 & 2198 \\

1285: Oxidative phosphorylation & 42 & 48.3 & 0.89 & 0.95 & 3.7 & 2600 \\

1286: Gluconeogenesis, fatty acid beta-oxidation & 38 & 18.2 & 0.81 & 0.63 &

1287: 2.9 & 264\\

1288: Mitochondrial ribosomal genes & 52 & 57.6 & 0.79 & 0.89 & 3.3 & 2291 \\

1289: Transcription (RNA polymerase etc.)++ & 22 & 70.4 & 0.59 & 0.52 & 3.2 &

1290: 1 \\

1291: Subtelomerically-encoded proteins & 36 & 48.2 & 0.94 & 1.00 & 3.9 & 6174

1292: \\

1293: Iron/copper uptake & 38 & 10.8 & 0.82 & 0.79 & 3.7 & 1704 \\

1294: Coated vesicles/secretion & 25 & 47.6 & 0.61 & 0.64 & 3.7 & 4 \\

1295: Phosphoglycerides biosynthesis & 33 & 36.1 & 0.86 & 0.61 & 2.9 & 27 \\

1296: Hexose transporters & 10 & 33.9 & 0.74 & 0.60 & 3.8 & 41 \\

1297: Galactose utilization & 23 & 17.4 & 0.84 & 0.74 & 3.2 & 686 \\

1298: Mid sporulation & 97 & 11.7 & 0.90 & 0.70 & 2.7 & 6556 \\

1299: Mating factors/receptors: a/$\alpha$ difference & 26 & 15.8 & 0.57 &

1300: 0.58 & 3.8 & 6\\

1301: Mating & 110 & 31.1 & 0.89 & 0.75 & 2.7 & 24622 \\

1302: Mating type a signaling genes & 6 & 18.6 & 0.26 & 0.83 & 5.5 & 22 \\

1303: Mating genes for mating type a & 15 & 13.6 & 0.41 & 0.53 & 8.0 & 16 \\

1304: Phosphate utilization & 27 & 24.4 & 0.89 & 0.81 & 3.3 & 5796 \\

1305: Glycolysis & 19 & 26.9 & 0.54 & 0.89 & 3.7 & 91 \\

1306: Ergosterol biosynthesis & 36 & 28.3 & 0.89 & 0.69 & 3.1 & 57 \\

1307: Cell cycle G1/S & 66 & 39.1 & 0.80 & 0.81 & 3.7 & 4382 \\

1308: Cell wall (bud emergence) & 17 & 42.7 & 0.76 & 0.94 & 4.0 & 63 \\

1309: Cell cycle M/G1 & 35 & 31.4 & 0.82 & 0.89 & 3.9 & 952 \\

1310: Cell cycle G2/M & 31 & 25.0 & 0.82 & 0.90 & 3.7 & 1258 \\

1311: Uracil synthesis/permeases & 8 & 11.4 & 0.75 & 0.88 & 3.5 & 19 \\

1312: Fatty acid synthesis++ & 22 & 49.4 & 0.86 & 0.50 & 3.1 & 2 \\

1313: Histones & 19 & 34.6 & 0.67 & 0.53 & 3.4 & 2972 \\

1314: Ribosomal proteins & 126 & 49.2 & 0.91 & 0.87 & 3.0 & 18661 \\

1315: rRNA processing & 117 & 46.0 & 0.85 & 0.64 & 2.7 & 13355 \\ \hline

1316: \end{tabular}

1317: \caption{40 of the modules found by PISA that we could assign a name to.

1318: For each module we list the number of genes in the module, the number of

1319: conditions that had a significant contribution to the module, how

1320: consistent

1321: the module was from each run to the next, the maximal overlap with a

1322: module

1323: found by ISA (using 200,000 seeds at each threshold from 1.8 to 15.0),

1324: the threshold value $t_{\rm G}$ at which that overlap was found, and how

1325: many times such an ISA module was found.}

1326: \end{table*}

1327: 

1328: 

1329: \begin{figure}

1330: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1331: \fbox{

1332: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

1333: \begin{flushleft}

1334: \moduletitlesize

1335: Module: Galactose induced genes

1336: \modulesize

1337: 

1338: \vspace{10pt}

1339: 

1340: Number of genes: 23

1341: 

1342: Average number of contributing conditions: 18.1

1343: 

1344: Consistency: 0.84

1345: 

1346: Best ISA overlap: 0.74 at threshold 3.2, frequency 686

1347: \genesize

1348: \vspace{10pt}

1349: 

1350: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,0)

1351: \ignore{

1352:       GAL10  30  651.086

1353:        GAL7  30  638.409

1354:        GAL1  30  632.368

1355:        GAL3  30  492.239

1356:        GAL2  30  424.969

1357:     YPL066W  30  412.222

1358:     YOR121C  30  370.898

1359:       GAL80  30  362.546

1360:       PCL10  30  350.308

1361:        GCY1  30  339.059

1362:        MLF3  30  306.93

1363:     YDR010C  24  227.32

1364:     YLR201C  22  200.349

1365:        FUR4  21  188.24

1366:        MUP3  18  178.833

1367:      MRPL24  18  161.74

1368:        OPT2  17  146.191

1369:     YEL057C  16  135.229

1370: }

1371: \put(  65,  75){\gene{1}{GAL7}}

1372: \put(   0,  75){\gene{1}{GAL10}}

1373: \put( 130,  75){\gene{1}{GAL1}}

1374: \put(  65,  25){\gene{4}{FUR4}}

1375: \put( 195,  75){\gene{1}{GAL3}}

1376: \put( 325,  50){\gene{0}{YDR010C}}

1377: \put( 260,   0){\gene{2}{HXT3}}

1378: \put( 325,  25){\gene{0}{YEL057C}}

1379: \put( 130,  50){\gene{4}{PCL10}}

1380: \put( 130,  25){\gene{4}{MUP3}}

1381: \put( 130,   0){\gene{2}{HXT4}}

1382: \put(   0,   0){\gene{2}{HXT1}}

1383: \put( 195,   0){\gene{3}{HSL1}}

1384: \put( 260,  75){\gene{1}{GAL2}}

1385: \put(   0,  25){\gene{0}{YLR201C}}

1386: \put(  65,  50){\gene{1}{GAL80}}

1387: \put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{HXT2}}

1388: \put( 195,  25){\gene{4}{MRPL24}}

1389: \put( 260,  50){\gene{4}{MLF3}}

1390: \put( 195,  50){\gene{1}{GCY1}}

1391: \put(   0,  50){\gene{0}{YOR121C}}

1392: \put( 325,  75){\gene{0}{YPL066W}}

1393: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{OPT2}}

1394: \ignore{

1395: \put(  65,  75){\gene{1}{GAL7}}

1396: \put(   0,  75){\gene{1}{GAL10}}

1397: \put( 260,  75){\gene{1}{GAL1}}

1398: \put( 195,  50){\gene{4}{FUR4}}

1399: \put(   0,  50){\gene{1}{GAL3}}

1400: \put( 325,  75){\gene{0}{YDR010C}}

1401: \put( 260,   0){\gene{2}{HXT3}}

1402: \put( 260,  50){\gene{0}{YEL057C}}

1403: \put(  65,  25){\gene{4}{PCL10}}

1404: \put( 325,  25){\gene{4}{MUP3}}

1405: \put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{HXT4}}

1406: \put( 195,   0){\gene{2}{HXT1}}

1407: \put(   0,   0){\gene{3}{HSL1}}

1408: \put( 130,  50){\gene{1}{GAL2}}

1409: \put( 195,  25){\gene{0}{YLR201C}}

1410: \put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{GAL80}}

1411: \put( 130,   0){\gene{2}{HXT2}}

1412: \put( 130,  25){\gene{4}{MRPL24}}

1413: \put( 325,  50){\gene{4}{MLF3}}

1414: \put( 260,  25){\gene{1}{GCY1}}

1415: \put( 195,  75){\gene{0}{YOR121C}}

1416: \put( 130,  75){\gene{0}{YPL066W}}

1417: \put(  65,  50){\gene{4}{OPT2}}

1418: }

1419: \end{picture}

1420: 

1421: \vspace{20pt}

1422: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

1423: 

1424: \vspace{5pt}

1425: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Galactose induced genes \genesize

1426: 

1427: \vspace{5pt}

1428: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Hexose transporters (downregulated) \genesize

1429: 

1430: \vspace{5pt}

1431: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Other, downregulated \genesize

1432: 

1433: \vspace{5pt}

1434: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

1435: 

1436: \vspace{10pt}

1437: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Galactose}

1438: \end{flushleft}

1439: \end{minipage}

1440: }

1441: \caption{The galactose induced module found with PISA. This module turns

1442: on

1443: GAL genes and also, as a weaker effect, represses a number of hexose

1444: transporters.}

1445: \label{GalactoseModule}

1446: \end{figure}

1447: 

1448: \begin{figure}

1449: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1450: \fbox{

1451: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

1452: \begin{flushleft}

1453: \moduletitlesize

1454: Module: Hexose transporters

1455: \modulesize

1456: 

1457: \vspace{10pt}

1458: 

1459: Number of genes: 10

1460: 

1461: Average number of contributing conditions: 33.7

1462: 

1463: Consistency: 0.74

1464: 

1465: Best ISA overlap: 0.6 at threshold 3.8, frequency 41

1466: \genesize

1467: \vspace{10pt}

1468: 

1469: \begin{picture}(300,50)(0,0)

1470: \ignore{

1471:        HXT3  28  292.002

1472:        HXT4  28  260.904

1473:        HXT2  27  231.856

1474:        HXT6  26  228.681

1475:        HXT7  25  192.247

1476:        GAL2  25  182.687

1477:     YKR075C  21  167.997

1478:        HXT1  19  131.751

1479:        MIG2  15  109.509

1480:        HXT8  18  102.121

1481: }

1482: \put( 260,  25){\gene{1}{HXT7}}

1483: \put( 195,  25){\gene{1}{HXT6}}

1484: \put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{HXT3}}

1485: \put( 130,   0){\gene{3}{MIG2}}

1486: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{HXT4}}

1487: \put(  65,   0){\gene{1}{HXT1}}

1488: \put( 195,   0){\gene{1}{HXT8}}

1489: \put(   0,   0){\gene{4}{YKR075C}}

1490: \put( 325,  25){\gene{2}{GAL2}}

1491: \put( 130,  25){\gene{1}{HXT2}}

1492: \ignore{

1493: \put( 130,  25){\gene{1}{HXT7}}

1494: \put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{HXT6}}

1495: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{HXT3}}

1496: \put(   0,   0){\gene{3}{MIG2}}

1497: \put( 195,  25){\gene{1}{HXT4}}

1498: \put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{HXT1}}

1499: \put( 195,   0){\gene{1}{HXT8}}

1500: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{YKR075C}}

1501: \put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{GAL2}}

1502: \put( 130,   0){\gene{1}{HXT2}}

1503: }

1504: \end{picture}

1505: 

1506: \vspace{20pt}

1507: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Glucose transporter \genesize

1508: 

1509: \vspace{5pt}

1510: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Galactose/glucose transporter \genesize

1511: 

1512: \vspace{5pt}

1513: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Glucose suppression regulator \genesize

1514: 

1515: \vspace{5pt}

1516: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Similar to glucose suppression regulator

1517: \genesize

1518: 

1519: \vspace{10pt}

1520: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Hexose}

1521: \end{flushleft}

1522: \end{minipage}

1523: }

1524: \caption{The hexose transporter module found with PISA. In this module

1525: (which is consistently found after the galactose induced module), the

1526: hexose transporter genes are co-regulated with GAL2, the galactose

1527: permease,

1528: whereas they were counter-regulated in the galactose induced module.

1529: }

1530: \label{HexoseModule}

1531: \end{figure}

1532: 

1533: \begin{figure}

1534: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1535: \fbox{

1536: \begin{minipage}{3.250in}

1537: \begin{flushleft}

1538: \moduletitlesize

1539: Module: Peroxide shock

1540: \modulesize

1541: 

1542: \vspace{10pt}

1543: 

1544: Number of genes: 69

1545: 

1546: Average number of contributing conditions: 23.9

1547: 

1548: Consistency: 0.91

1549: 

1550: Best ISA overlap: 0.34 at threshold 3.4, frequency (1)

1551: \genesize

1552: \vspace{10pt}

1553: %412224201144122444041014204410000433410440110031311420021003230420134

1554: \begin{picture}(300,300)(0,0)

1555: \ignore{

1556:     YKL071W  27  440.999

1557:        GPX2  27  439.203

1558:     YCR102C  27  407.171

1559:        FLR1  27  404.604

1560:        AAD6  27  395.01

1561:     YLR108C  27  393.525

1562:     YDR132C  27  382.926

1563:        GSH1  27  376.947

1564:     YLR460C  27  359.603

1565:        ISU2  27  352.729

1566:     YML131W  27  351.048

1567:     YFL057C  27  349.464

1568:       AAD15  27  343.579

1569:        AAD4  27  340.833

1570:        GTT2  27  328.238

1571:        FRE1  27  301.459

1572:        ATR1  27  300.928

1573:     YKR071C  27  299.813

1574:        TRR1  27  296.053

1575:       AAD14  27  293.316

1576:        SFA1  27  287.805

1577:     YNL134C  27  285.864

1578:     YDR453C  27  284.169

1579:        SDL1  27  280.931

1580:     YOR225W  27  279.217

1581:     YNL260C  27  278.871

1582:        CCP1  27  272.347

1583:     YOL150C  27  270.386

1584:        YSR3  27  268.748

1585:     YGL114W  27  260.416

1586:     YNR074C  27  259.628

1587:        AAD3  27  257.615

1588:        ISA2  27  252.627

1589:        OYE3  27  249.483

1590:        MRS4  27  237.294

1591:        YAP1  27  233.256

1592:        CYT2  27  230.506

1593:        ECM4  27  228.089

1594:        TRX2  26  228.088

1595:     YKL070W  27  224.577

1596:       LYS20  26  217.823

1597:        RIB3  26  214.765

1598:        MMT1  25  209.659

1599:       TAH18  25  209.175

1600:     YMR318C  25  198.007

1601:       TRS31  25  197.644

1602:        GRE2  24  189.743

1603:     YGR223C  24  188.606

1604:        OYE2  23  179.3

1605:     YGR011W  24  177.868

1606:        SOD2  23  170.43

1607:        TTR1  22  166.371

1608:        KSS1  21  150.661

1609:     YKL086W  19  144.809

1610:     YOL029C  19  143.744

1611:        KTR2  20  143.164

1612:       NBP35  19  139.893

1613:        CIN5  18  134.513

1614:        SOD1  18  132.523

1615:        AHP1  17  125.702

1616:        NFU1  17  123.387

1617:        LYS7  17  123.159

1618:        TSA1  16  115.828

1619:        ROX1  16  115.701

1620:     YGR010W  16  113.785

1621:      CDC123  15  107.395

1622:     YHR199C  15  106.447

1623:     YHR111W  14  101.71

1624:     YPL202C  14  96.9853

1625: }

1626: \put( 195, 275){\gene{4}{FLR1}}

1627: \put(  65, 275){\gene{1}{GPX2}}

1628: \put( 130, 275){\gene{2}{YCR102C}}

1629: \put(  65, 150){\gene{2}{AAD3}}

1630: \put( 130, 200){\gene{2}{SFA1}}

1631: \put( 260, 125){\gene{4}{LYS20}}

1632: \put(  65, 225){\gene{2}{AAD4}}

1633: \put(   0, 250){\gene{0}{YDR132C}}

1634: \put(   0, 200){\gene{1}{TRR1}}

1635: \put( 260, 200){\gene{1}{YDR453C}}

1636: \put( 195, 100){\gene{4}{TRS31}}

1637: \put( 325, 125){\gene{4}{RIB3}}

1638: \put( 195,  75){\gene{1}{TTR1}}

1639: \put( 260, 275){\gene{2}{AAD6}}

1640: \put( 325, 250){\gene{2}{YFL057C}}

1641: \put( 130,  50){\gene{4}{NBP35}}

1642: \put( 325, 175){\gene{4}{YGL114W}}

1643: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{YGR010W}}

1644: \put(  65,  75){\gene{0}{YGR011W}}

1645: \put( 260,  75){\gene{4}{KSS1}}

1646: \put( 130, 125){\gene{1}{TRX2}}

1647: \put( 325, 100){\gene{0}{YGR223C}}

1648: \put( 130,  75){\gene{1}{SOD2}}

1649: \put(  65,   0){\gene{4}{YHR111W}}

1650: \put(   0,  75){\gene{2}{OYE2}}

1651: \put(   0,   0){\gene{0}{YHR199C}}

1652: \put( 325, 200){\gene{4}{SDL1}}

1653: \put(  65, 250){\gene{4}{GSH1}}

1654: \put( 260,  50){\gene{1}{SOD1}}

1655: \put(   0,  25){\gene{0}{NFU1}}

1656: \put( 195, 125){\gene{0}{YKL070W}}

1657: \put(   0, 275){\gene{0}{YKL071W}}

1658: \put( 325,  75){\gene{0}{YKL086W}}

1659: \put(   0, 125){\gene{4}{CYT2}}

1660: \put( 260, 150){\gene{3}{MRS4}}

1661: \put( 260, 175){\gene{3}{YSR3}}

1662: \put(  65,  50){\gene{4}{KTR2}}

1663: \put( 130, 175){\gene{1}{CCP1}}

1664: \put( 325, 225){\gene{0}{YKR071C}}

1665: \put(  65, 125){\gene{4}{ECM4}}

1666: \put( 130, 225){\gene{4}{GTT2}}

1667: \put( 325, 275){\gene{0}{YLR108C}}

1668: \put( 325,  50){\gene{1}{AHP1}}

1669: \put( 195, 225){\gene{1}{FRE1}}

1670: \put( 325,  25){\gene{0}{CDC123}}

1671: \put( 130, 250){\gene{0}{YLR460C}}

1672: \put( 325, 150){\gene{3}{YAP1}}

1673: \put( 130,  25){\gene{1}{TSA1}}

1674: \put( 260, 225){\gene{3}{ATR1}}

1675: \put( 260, 250){\gene{1}{YML131W}}

1676: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{LYS7}}

1677: \put(   0, 100){\gene{4}{MMT1}}

1678: \put( 130, 100){\gene{2}{YMR318C}}

1679: \put( 195, 200){\gene{0}{YNL134C}}

1680: \put(  65, 175){\gene{0}{YNL260C}}

1681: \put(  65, 200){\gene{2}{AAD14}}

1682: \put(   0, 150){\gene{1}{YNR074C}}

1683: \put(   0,  50){\gene{0}{YOL029C}}

1684: \put( 195, 175){\gene{0}{YOL150C}}

1685: \put( 260, 100){\gene{3}{GRE2}}

1686: \put(   0, 225){\gene{2}{AAD15}}

1687: \put( 195,  50){\gene{3}{CIN5}}

1688: \put(   0, 175){\gene{0}{YOR225W}}

1689: \put( 195, 250){\gene{4}{ISU2}}

1690: \put( 195, 150){\gene{2}{OYE3}}

1691: \put( 130,   0){\gene{0}{YPL202C}}

1692: \put(  65, 100){\gene{1}{TAH18}}

1693: \put( 195,  25){\gene{3}{ROX1}}

1694: \put( 130, 150){\gene{4}{ISA2}}

1695: \ignore{

1696: \put(  65, 275){\gene{4}{FLR1}}

1697: \put(   0, 275){\gene{1}{GPX2}}

1698: \put( 130, 275){\gene{2}{YCR102C}}

1699: \put(  65, 250){\gene{2}{AAD3}}

1700: \put( 195, 275){\gene{2}{SFA1}}

1701: \put(   0, 250){\gene{4}{LYS20}}

1702: \put(  65, 175){\gene{2}{AAD4}}

1703: \put( 325, 275){\gene{0}{YDR132C}}

1704: \put( 260, 250){\gene{1}{TRR1}}

1705: \put(   0, 225){\gene{1}{YDR453C}}

1706: \put(  65, 200){\gene{4}{TRS31}}

1707: \put( 130, 200){\gene{4}{RIB3}}

1708: \put( 325, 225){\gene{1}{TTR1}}

1709: \put( 260, 275){\gene{2}{AAD6}}

1710: \put( 325, 250){\gene{2}{YFL057C}}

1711: \put( 260, 225){\gene{4}{NBP35}}

1712: \put( 195, 175){\gene{4}{YGL114W}}

1713: \put(   0, 200){\gene{4}{YGR010W}}

1714: \put( 195, 225){\gene{0}{YGR011W}}

1715: \put( 325, 200){\gene{4}{KSS1}}

1716: \put( 195, 250){\gene{1}{TRX2}}

1717: \put( 130, 250){\gene{0}{YGR223C}}

1718: \put(  65, 225){\gene{1}{SOD2}}

1719: \put( 325, 175){\gene{4}{YHR111W}}

1720: \put( 130, 225){\gene{2}{OYE2}}

1721: \put( 130, 175){\gene{0}{YHR199C}}

1722: \put( 260, 200){\gene{4}{SDL1}}

1723: \put(   0, 175){\gene{4}{GSH1}}

1724: \put( 195, 200){\gene{1}{SOD1}}

1725: \put( 260, 175){\gene{0}{NFU1}}

1726: \put( 130, 125){\gene{0}{YKL070W}}

1727: \put(   0, 150){\gene{0}{YKL071W}}

1728: \put( 130,  50){\gene{0}{YKL086W}}

1729: \put( 130,  25){\gene{4}{CYT2}}

1730: \put(  65,  50){\gene{3}{MRS4}}

1731: \put( 260,  75){\gene{3}{YSR3}}

1732: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{KTR2}}

1733: \put( 195,  50){\gene{1}{CCP1}}

1734: \put( 195,  75){\gene{0}{YKR071C}}

1735: \put(   0,  25){\gene{4}{ECM4}}

1736: \put( 325,  75){\gene{4}{GTT2}}

1737: \put( 325, 100){\gene{0}{YLR108C}}

1738: \put( 325,  50){\gene{1}{AHP1}}

1739: \put( 260, 100){\gene{1}{FRE1}}

1740: \put(   0,  75){\gene{0}{CDC123}}

1741: \put( 260, 125){\gene{0}{YLR460C}}

1742: \put( 325, 125){\gene{3}{YAP1}}

1743: \put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{TSA1}}

1744: \put(  65, 100){\gene{3}{ATR1}}

1745: \put( 195, 125){\gene{1}{YML131W}}

1746: \put(  65,  75){\gene{1}{LYS7}}

1747: \put( 130, 100){\gene{4}{MMT1}}

1748: \put( 195, 100){\gene{2}{YMR318C}}

1749: \put(   0, 100){\gene{0}{YNL134C}}

1750: \put( 195, 150){\gene{0}{YNL260C}}

1751: \put( 260, 150){\gene{2}{AAD14}}

1752: \put(   0, 125){\gene{1}{YNR074C}}

1753: \put( 325, 150){\gene{0}{YOL029C}}

1754: \put( 130, 150){\gene{0}{YOL150C}}

1755: \put(  65, 125){\gene{3}{GRE2}}

1756: \put(  65, 150){\gene{2}{AAD15}}

1757: \put(   0,   0){\gene{3}{CIN5}}

1758: \put(   0,  50){\gene{0}{YOR225W}}

1759: \put( 130,  75){\gene{4}{ISU2}}

1760: \put( 130,   0){\gene{2}{OYE3}}

1761: \put(  65,   0){\gene{0}{YPL202C}}

1762: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{TAH18}}

1763: \put( 195,  25){\gene{3}{ROX1}}

1764: \put( 260,  50){\gene{4}{ISA2}}

1765: }

1766: \end{picture}

1767: 

1768: \vspace{20pt}

1769: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

1770: 

1771: \vspace{5pt}

1772: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, reductase

1773: \genesize

1774: 

1775: \vspace{5pt}

1776: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Dehydrogenase \genesize

1777: 

1778: \vspace{5pt}

1779: \gene{3}{2} \modulesize Other stress related genes \genesize

1780: 

1781: \vspace{5pt}

1782: \gene{4}{3} \modulesize Other \genesize

1783: %\end{figure}

1784: 

1785: \vspace{10pt}

1786: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Peroxide}

1787: \end{flushleft}

1788: \end{minipage}

1789: }

1790: \caption{The oxidative stress response module found with PISA. This

1791: module

1792: is significantly more complete than the modules of comparable size found

1793: by ISA.

1794: }

1795: \label{PeroxideShockModule}

1796: \end{figure}

1797: 

1798: 

1799: \ignore{

1800: \begin{figure}

1801: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1802: \fbox{

1803: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

1804: \begin{flushleft}

1805: \moduletitlesize

1806: 

1807: Module: De novo purine biosynthesis

1808: \modulesize

1809: 

1810: \vspace{10pt}

1811: Number of genes: 29

1812: 

1813: Average number of contributing conditions: 13.797

1814: 

1815: Consistency: 0.859429

1816: 

1817: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

1818: 

1819: \vspace{10pt}

1820: \genesize

1821: \begin{picture}(300,150)(0,0)

1822: \put(  65,  50){\gene{2}{GCV3}}

1823: \put( 260, 100){\gene{1}{ADE1}}

1824: \put( 260,   0){\gene{3}{HIS7}}

1825: \put( 325,  50){\gene{3}{HIS4}}

1826: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{AIP2}}

1827: \put(   0,  75){\gene{2}{GCV1}}

1828: \put(  65,  25){\gene{0}{YDR089W}}

1829: \put( 195,  50){\gene{1}{ADE8}}

1830: \put( 195,  75){\gene{4}{CEM1}}

1831: \put(   0,  25){\gene{2}{SER3}}

1832: \put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{MET6}}

1833: \put( 325,  75){\gene{1}{YGL186C}}

1834: \put(  65,  75){\gene{1}{ADE5,7}}

1835: \put( 260,  50){\gene{1}{ADE6}}

1836: \put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{ADE3}}

1837: \put( 130,   0){\gene{4}{ETF-BETA}}

1838: \put( 130,  25){\gene{2}{SER2}}

1839: \put(   0,   0){\gene{2}{SER33}}

1840: \put(   0, 100){\gene{2}{MTD1}}

1841: \put( 130, 100){\gene{2}{SHM2}}

1842: \put( 325, 100){\gene{1}{ADE13}}

1843: \put( 195,   0){\gene{4}{URA4}}

1844: \put( 195, 100){\gene{1}{ADE17}}

1845: \put(   0,  50){\gene{2}{GCV2}}

1846: \put( 130,  75){\gene{1}{ADE4}}

1847: \put( 130,  50){\gene{1}{ADE12}}

1848: \put(  65, 100){\gene{1}{ADE2}}

1849: \put( 260,  75){\gene{2}{SER1}}

1850: \put( 195,  25){\gene{4}{YPR004C}}

1851: \end{picture}

1852: 

1853: 

1854: \vspace{20pt}

1855: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

1856: 

1857: \vspace{5pt}

1858: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Purine synthesis/transport \genesize

1859: 

1860: \vspace{5pt}

1861: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Tetrahydrofolate activation \genesize

1862: 

1863: \vspace{5pt}

1864: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Histidine biosynthesis \genesize

1865: 

1866: \vspace{5pt}

1867: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

1868: 

1869: \vspace{10pt}

1870: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Purine}

1871: \end{flushleft}

1872: \end{minipage}

1873: }

1874: \caption{The de novo purine synthesis module found with PISA.}

1875: \label{PurineModule}

1876: \end{figure}

1877: 

1878: 

1879: \begin{figure}

1880: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1881: \fbox{

1882: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

1883: \begin{flushleft}

1884: \moduletitlesize

1885: Module: Galactose induced genes

1886: \modulesize

1887: 

1888: \vspace{10pt}

1889: 

1890: Number of genes: 22

1891: 

1892: Average number of contributing conditions: 17.6144

1893: 

1894: Consistency: 0.863624

1895: 

1896: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

1897: \genesize

1898: \vspace{10pt}

1899: 

1900: \begin{picture}(300,100)(0,0)

1901: \put(  65,  75){\gene{1}{GAL7}}

1902: \put(   0,  75){\gene{1}{GAL10}}

1903: \put( 130,  75){\gene{1}{GAL1}}

1904: \put( 195,  25){\gene{4}{FUR4}}

1905: \put( 195,  75){\gene{1}{GAL3}}

1906: \put(  65,  25){\gene{0}{YDR010C}}

1907: \put( 195,   0){\gene{2}{HXT3}}

1908: \put( 325,  25){\gene{0}{YEL057C}}

1909: \put(  65,  50){\gene{4}{PCL10}}

1910: \put( 130,  25){\gene{4}{MUP3}}

1911: \put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{HXT4}}

1912: \put( 130,   0){\gene{3}{HSL1}}

1913: \put( 260,  75){\gene{1}{GAL2}}

1914: \put(   0,  25){\gene{0}{YLR201C}}

1915: \put( 130,  50){\gene{1}{GAL80}}

1916: \put(   0,   0){\gene{2}{HXT2}}

1917: \put( 325,  50){\gene{4}{MRPL24}}

1918: \put( 260,  50){\gene{4}{MLF3}}

1919: \put( 195,  50){\gene{1}{GCY1}}

1920: \put(   0,  50){\gene{0}{YOR121C}}

1921: \put( 325,  75){\gene{0}{YPL066W}}

1922: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{OPT2}}

1923: \end{picture}

1924: 

1925: \vspace{20pt}

1926: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

1927: 

1928: \vspace{5pt}

1929: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Galactose induced genes \genesize

1930: 

1931: \vspace{5pt}

1932: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Hexose transporters (downregulated) \genesize

1933: 

1934: \vspace{5pt}

1935: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Other, downregulated \genesize

1936: 

1937: \vspace{5pt}

1938: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

1939: 

1940: \vspace{10pt}

1941: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Galactose}

1942: \end{flushleft}

1943: \end{minipage}

1944: }

1945: \caption{The galactose induced module found with PISA. This module turns

1946: on

1947: GAL genes and also, as a weaker effect, represses a number of hexose

1948: transporters.}

1949: \label{GalactoseModule}

1950: \end{figure}

1951: 

1952: 

1953: \begin{figure}

1954: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

1955: \fbox{

1956: \begin{minipage}{3.250in}

1957: \begin{flushleft}

1958: \moduletitlesize

1959: Module: Peroxide shock

1960: \modulesize

1961: 

1962: \vspace{10pt}

1963: 

1964: Number of genes: 56

1965: 

1966: Average number of contributing conditions: 25.3795

1967: 

1968: Consistency: 0.836174

1969: 

1970: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

1971: \genesize

1972: \vspace{10pt}

1973: %412224201144122444041014204410000433410440110031311420021003230420134

1974: \begin{picture}(300,300)(0,0)

1975: \put( 260, 225){\gene{4}{FLR1}}

1976: \put(  65, 225){\gene{1}{GPX2}}

1977: \put( 130, 225){\gene{2}{YCR102C}}

1978: \put(  65, 125){\gene{2}{AAD3}}

1979: \put(   0, 150){\gene{2}{SFA1}}

1980: \put( 260,  75){\gene{4}{LYS20}}

1981: \put(  65, 175){\gene{2}{AAD4}}

1982: \put(   0, 200){\gene{0}{YDR132C}}

1983: \put( 260, 150){\gene{1}{TRR1}}

1984: \put( 195, 150){\gene{1}{YDR453C}}

1985: \put( 260,  50){\gene{4}{TRS31}}

1986: \put(   0,  50){\gene{4}{RIB3}}

1987: \put(   0,   0){\gene{1}{TTR1}}

1988: \put( 195, 225){\gene{2}{AAD6}}

1989: \put(   0, 175){\gene{2}{YFL057C}}

1990: \put(  65, 100){\gene{4}{YGL114W}}

1991: \put(  65,  25){\gene{0}{YGR011W}}

1992: \put(   0,  25){\gene{4}{KSS1}}

1993: \put(   0,  75){\gene{1}{TRX2}}

1994: \put( 195,  50){\gene{0}{YGR223C}}

1995: \put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{SOD2}}

1996: \put( 260,  25){\gene{2}{OYE2}}

1997: \put( 260, 125){\gene{4}{SDL1}}

1998: \put(  65, 200){\gene{4}{GSH1}}

1999: \put( 195,  75){\gene{0}{YKL070W}}

2000: \put(   0, 225){\gene{0}{YKL071W}}

2001: \put(  65,  75){\gene{4}{CYT2}}

2002: \put( 325, 100){\gene{3}{MRS4}}

2003: \put( 325, 125){\gene{3}{YSR3}}

2004: \put(   0, 125){\gene{1}{CCP1}}

2005: \put( 325, 150){\gene{0}{YKR071C}}

2006: \put( 195, 100){\gene{4}{ECM4}}

2007: \put( 130, 175){\gene{4}{GTT2}}

2008: \put( 325, 225){\gene{0}{YLR108C}}

2009: \put( 130, 150){\gene{1}{FRE1}}

2010: \put( 130, 200){\gene{0}{YLR460C}}

2011: \put( 130,  75){\gene{3}{YAP1}}

2012: \put( 260, 175){\gene{3}{ATR1}}

2013: \put( 325, 200){\gene{1}{YML131W}}

2014: \put( 325,  75){\gene{4}{MMT1}}

2015: \put( 325,  50){\gene{2}{YMR318C}}

2016: \put(  65, 150){\gene{0}{YNL134C}}

2017: \put( 195, 125){\gene{0}{YNL260C}}

2018: \put( 195, 175){\gene{2}{AAD14}}

2019: \put(   0, 100){\gene{1}{YNR074C}}

2020: \put( 130,  25){\gene{0}{YOL029C}}

2021: \put( 130, 125){\gene{0}{YOL150C}}

2022: \put( 130,  50){\gene{3}{GRE2}}

2023: \put( 260, 200){\gene{2}{AAD15}}

2024: \put( 195,  25){\gene{3}{CIN5}}

2025: \put( 325, 175){\gene{0}{YOR225W}}

2026: \put( 195, 200){\gene{4}{ISU2}}

2027: \put( 260, 100){\gene{2}{OYE3}}

2028: \put(  65,  50){\gene{1}{TAH18}}

2029: \put(  65,   0){\gene{3}{ROX1}}

2030: \put( 130, 100){\gene{4}{ISA2}}

2031: \end{picture}

2032: 

2033: \vspace{20pt}

2034: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

2035: 

2036: \vspace{5pt}

2037: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, reductase

2038: \genesize

2039: 

2040: \vspace{5pt}

2041: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Dehydrogenase \genesize

2042: 

2043: \vspace{5pt}

2044: \gene{3}{2} \modulesize Other stress related genes \genesize

2045: 

2046: \vspace{5pt}

2047: \gene{4}{3} \modulesize Other \genesize

2048: %\end{figure}

2049: 

2050: \vspace{10pt}

2051: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Peroxide}

2052: \end{flushleft}

2053: \end{minipage}

2054: }

2055: \caption{The oxidative stress response module found with PISA. This

2056: module

2057: is significantly more complete than the modules of comparable size found

2058: by ISA.

2059: }

2060: \label{PeroxideShockModule}

2061: \end{figure}

2062: 

2063: 

2064: \begin{figure}

2065: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2066: \fbox{

2067: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2068: \begin{flushleft}

2069: \moduletitlesize

2070: Module: Hexose transporters

2071: \modulesize

2072: 

2073: \vspace{10pt}

2074: 

2075: Number of genes: 12

2076: Average number of contributing conditions: 33.1968

2077: Consistency: 0.78495

2078: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

2079: genesize

2080: vspace{10pt}

2081: \begin{picture}(300,50)(0,0)

2082: put( 260,   0){\gene{3}{MTH1}}

2083: put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{HXT7}}

2084: put( 195,  25){\gene{1}{HXT6}}

2085: put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{HXT3}}

2086: put( 130,   0){\gene{3}{MIG2}}

2087: put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{HXT4}}

2088: put(  65,   0){\gene{1}{HXT1}}

2089: put( 195,   0){\gene{1}{HXT8}}

2090: put(   0,   0){\gene{3}{YKR075C}}

2091: put( 260,  25){\gene{2}{GAL2}}

2092: put( 130,  25){\gene{1}{HXT2}}

2093: put( 325,   0){\gene{4}{YPR127W}}

2094: end{picture}

2095: \vspace{20pt}

2096: gene{1}{1} \modulesize Glucose transporter \genesize

2097: \vspace{5pt}

2098: gene{2}{2} \modulesize Galactose/glucose transporter \genesize

2099: \vspace{5pt}

2100: gene{3}{3} \modulesize Glucose suppression regulator \genesize

2101: \vspace{5pt}

2102: gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other, downregulated \genesize

2103: \vspace{10pt}

2104: includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Hexose}

2105: end{flushleft}

2106: end{minipage}

2107: 

2108: caption{The hexose transporter module found with PISA. In this module

2109: which is consistently found after the galactose induced module), the

2110: hexose transporter genes are co-regulated with GAL2, the galactose

2111: permease,

2112: hereas they are counter-regulated in the galactose induced module. Many

2113: of the genes that had a score slightly below the threshold are also

2114: glucose suppression related.

2115: 

2116: label{HexoseModule}

2117: end{figure}

2118: 

2119: 

2120: 

2121: begin{figure}

2122: setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2123: fbox{

2124: begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2125: begin{flushleft}

2126: moduletitlesize

2127: odule: Flocculation

2128: modulesize

2129: \vspace{10pt}

2130: Number of genes: 6

2131: Average number of contributing conditions: 15.5088

2132: Consistency: 0.552039

2133: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

2134: genesize

2135: vspace{10pt}

2136: \begin{picture}(300,25)(0,0)

2137: ignore{

2138:       FLO5  11  63.1642

2139:       FLO9  11  57.3713

2140:    YAL065C  11  52.6247

2141:    YAR062W  11  50.6705

2142:       FLO1   8  39.5147

2143:    YHR213W   6  21.7364

2144: 

2145: put(  65,   0){\gene{2}{FLO9}}

2146: put( 130,   0){\gene{2}{YAL065C}}

2147: put( 260,   0){\gene{1}{FLO1}}

2148: put( 195,   0){\gene{3}{YAR062W}}

2149: put(   0,   0){\gene{1}{FLO5}}

2150: put( 325,   0){\gene{3}{YHR213W}}

2151: end{picture}

2152: 

2153: \vspace{20pt}

2154: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Flocculin \genesize

2155: 

2156: \vspace{5pt}

2157: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Similar to Flo1p \genesize

2158: 

2159: \vspace{5pt}

2160: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Similar to N-terminus of Flo1p \genesize

2161: 

2162: \vspace{10pt}

2163: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Flocculation}

2164: \end{flushleft}

2165: \end{minipage}

2166: }

2167: \caption{The flocculation module found with PISA. 

2168: \comment{There is some support for this in database A.

2169: unknown genes for other modules

2170: Use our modules to guide p-values of TF database.}

2171: }

2172: \label{FlocculationModule}

2173: \end{figure}

2174: 

2175: 

2176: }}}}

2177: \begin{figure}

2178: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2179: \fbox{

2180: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2181: \begin{flushleft}

2182: \moduletitlesize

2183: Module: Zinc regulated genes

2184: \modulesize

2185: 

2186: \vspace{10pt}

2187: 

2188: Number of genes: 8

2189: 

2190: Average number of contributing conditions: 29.0683

2191: 

2192: Consistency: 0.638515

2193: 

2194: Best ISA overlap: 0.88 at threshold 4.6, frequency 2

2195: \genesize

2196: \vspace{10pt}

2197: 

2198: \begin{picture}(300,50)(0,0)

2199: \ignore{

2200:        ZRT1  22  264.338

2201:        ZRT3  22  202.015

2202:        ZAP1  22  195.191

2203:        ZRT2  18  128.968

2204:     YOL154W  18  113.449

2205:        INO1  17  109.054

2206:        ADH4  19  108.413

2207:     YNL254C  20  103.622

2208: }

2209: \put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{ZRT1}}

2210: \put(   0,   0){\gene{4}{ADH4}}

2211: \put( 130,  25){\gene{2}{ZAP1}}

2212: \put( 325,  25){\gene{4}{INO1}}

2213: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{ZRT3}}

2214: \put( 195,  25){\gene{1}{ZRT2}}

2215: \put(  65,   0){\gene{0}{YNL254C}}

2216: \put( 260,  25){\gene{3}{YOL154W}}

2217: \end{picture}

2218: 

2219: \vspace{20pt}

2220: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

2221: 

2222: \vspace{5pt}

2223: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Zinc transport/storage \genesize

2224: 

2225: \vspace{5pt}

2226: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Zinc-responsive transcription factor \genesize

2227: 

2228: \vspace{5pt}

2229: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Zinc metalloproteinase \genesize

2230: 

2231: \vspace{5pt}

2232: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

2233: 

2234: \vspace{10pt}

2235: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Zinc}

2236: \end{flushleft}

2237: \end{minipage}

2238: }

2239: \caption{The zinc module found with PISA. This module has a high overlap

2240: with

2241: the group of genes bound by ZAP1 in database A (at $p$-value 0.001): The

2242: ZRT1, ZRT2, ZRT3, ZAP1 and YNL254C genes make up 5 of the 6 lowest

2243: $p$-values

2244: (counting each pair of divergently transcribed genes only once), and the

2245: remaining hits from database A (most with $p$-values above $10^{-4}$)

2246: are likely to be mostly false positives. Based on this, it seems very

2247: likely

2248: than YNL254C, if functional, is regulated by and related to zinc. (ADH4

2249: has also been shown to be zinc-regulated elsewhere.)

2250: }

2251: \label{ZincModule}

2252: \end{figure}

2253: 

2254: 

2255: \begin{figure}

2256: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2257: \fbox{

2258: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2259: \begin{flushleft}

2260: \moduletitlesize

2261: Module: Arginine regulation

2262: \modulesize

2263: 

2264: \vspace{10pt}

2265: 

2266: Number of genes: 7

2267: 

2268: Average number of contributing conditions: 14.0667

2269: 

2270: Consistency: 0.548283

2271: 

2272: Best ISA overlap: 0.71 at threshold 6.0, frequency 60

2273: \genesize

2274: \vspace{10pt}

2275: 

2276: \begin{picture}(300,50)(0,0)

2277: \put( 325,  25){\gene{1}{ARG5,6}}

2278: \put(  65,  25){\gene{1}{ARG3}}

2279: \put(   0,   0){\gene{2}{CAR2}}

2280: \put( 260,  25){\gene{4}{CTF13}}

2281: \put( 130,  25){\gene{1}{ARG1}}

2282: \put(   0,  25){\gene{1}{ARG8}}

2283: \put( 195,  25){\gene{1}{CPA1}}

2284: \end{picture}

2285: 

2286: \vspace{20pt}

2287: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Arginine biosynthesis \genesize

2288: 

2289: \vspace{5pt}

2290: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Arginine degradation, downregulated \genesize

2291: 

2292: \vspace{5pt}

2293: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

2294: 

2295: \vspace{10pt}

2296: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Arginine}

2297: \end{flushleft}

2298: \end{minipage}

2299: }

2300: \caption{The arginine regulated module found with PISA. The module

2301: agrees very well with what is known about regulation of arginine

2302: metabolism

2303: [F. Mesenguy and E. Dubois (2000) {\it Food tech. bio.} {\bf 38},

2304: 277-285]:

2305: ARG1, ARG3, ARG5,6 and ARG8 are repressed by arginine through the

2306: Arg80/Arg81/Mcm1 complex, while CAR2 (and CAR1, which is the 2nd highest

2307: scoring gene that failed to make the module) is activated by the same

2308: complex.

2309: We also find CPA1, which is claimed to be regulated by arginine at the

2310: translational

2311: level---the mRNA is destabilized by a small peptide in the presence of

2312: arginine. However, database A indicates that ARG1, ARG3, ARG5,6, ARG8

2313: and CPA1 are

2314: all bound by the Arg80/Arg81/Mcm1 complex.

2315: }

2316: \label{ArginineModule}

2317: \end{figure}

2318: 

2319: 

2320: \ignore{

2321: \begin{figure}

2322: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2323: \fbox{

2324: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2325: \begin{flushleft}

2326: \moduletitlesize

2327: Module: IMP dehydrogenase

2328: \modulesize

2329: 

2330: \vspace{10pt}

2331: 

2332: Number of genes: 5

2333: 

2334: Average number of contributing conditions: 17.6909

2335: 

2336: Consistency: 0.792111

2337: 

2338: Best ISA overlap:  at threshold , frequency

2339: \genesize

2340: \vspace{10pt}

2341: 

2342: \begin{picture}(300,25)(0,0)

2343: \put(   0,   0){\gene{2}{IMD1}}

2344: \put( 130,   0){\gene{2}{YAR075W}}

2345: \put( 260,   0){\gene{3}{GLN3}}

2346: \put(  65,   0){\gene{1}{IMD2}}

2347: \put( 195,   0){\gene{2}{IMD3}}

2348: \end{picture}

2349: 

2350: \vspace{20pt}

2351: \vspace{5pt}

2352: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Inosine-5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase \genesize

2353: 

2354: \vspace{5pt}

2355: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Protein with similarity to Imd2p \genesize

2356: 

2357: \vspace{5pt}

2358: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Nitrogen regulatory protein, downregulated

2359: \genesize

2360: 

2361: \vspace{10pt}

2362: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{IMD}

2363: \end{flushleft}

2364: \end{minipage}

2365: }

2366: \caption{The last IMD gene, IMD4, is the highest scoring gene not

2367: included in

2368: the module (but the score is far below that of GLN3).

2369: }

2370: \label{NewModule}

2371: \end{figure}

2372: 

2373: 

2374: \ignore{

2375: \begin{figure}

2376: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.6pt}

2377: \fbox{

2378: \begin{minipage}{3.200in}

2379: \begin{flushleft}

2380: \moduletitlesize

2381: \begin{picture}(300,50)(0,0)

2382: \end{picture}

2383: 

2384: \vspace{20pt}

2385: \gene{0}{0} \modulesize Unknown \genesize

2386: 

2387: \vspace{5pt}

2388: \gene{1}{1} \modulesize Zinc transport/storage \genesize

2389: 

2390: \vspace{5pt}

2391: \gene{2}{2} \modulesize Zinc-responsive transcription factor \genesize

2392: 

2393: \vspace{5pt}

2394: \gene{3}{3} \modulesize Zinc metalloproteinase \genesize

2395: 

2396: \vspace{5pt}

2397: \gene{4}{4} \modulesize Other \genesize

2398: 

2399: \vspace{10pt}

2400: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{Arginine}

2401: \end{flushleft}

2402: \end{minipage}

2403: }

2404: \caption{

2405: }

2406: \label{NewModule}

2407: \end{figure}

2408: }

2409: }

2410: 

2411: 

2412: 

2413: 

2414: \end{document}

2415: 

2416: 

2417: 

2418: