MapReduce Algorithms for Inferring Gene Regulatory Networks from
Time‐Series Microarray Data Using an Information‐Theoretic Approach
Yasser Abduallah, Turki Turki, Kevin Byron, Zongxuan Du, Miguel Cervantes-Cervantes
Jason T. L. Wang

Computer Science Department, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, USA

1

Abstract
Gene regulation is a series of processes that control gene expression and its extent. The
connections among genes and their regulatory molecules, usually transcription factors, and a
descriptive model of such connections, are known as gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
Elucidating GRNs is crucial to understand the inner workings of the cell and the complexity of
gene interactions. To date, numerous algorithms have been developed to infer gene regulatory
networks. However, as the number of identified genes increases and the complexity of their
interactions is uncovered, networks and their regulatory mechanisms become cumbersome to
test. Furthermore, prodding through experimental results requires an enormous amount of
computation, resulting in slow data processing. Therefore, new approaches are needed to
expeditiously analyze copious amounts of experimental data resulting from cellular GRNs. To
meet this need, cloud computing is promising as reported in the literature. Here we propose new
MapReduce algorithms for inferring gene regulatory networks on a Hadoop cluster in a cloud
environment. These algorithms employ an information-theoretic approach to infer GRNs using
time-series microarray data. Experimental results show that our MapReduce program is much
faster than an existing tool while achieving slightly better prediction accuracy than the existing
tool.

2

1. Introduction
Current biotechnology has allowed researchers in various fields to obtain immense amounts of
experimental information, ranging from macromolecular sequences, gene expression data to
proteomics and metabolomics. In addition to large-scale genomic information obtained through
such methods as third generation DNA sequencing, newer technology, such as RNA-seq and
ChIP-seq, has allowed researchers to fine tune the analysis of gene expression patterns [1-3].
More information on interactions between transcription factors and DNA, both qualitative and
quantitative, is increasingly emerging from microarray data [4-6]. Although microarrays alone
do not provide direct evidence of functional connections among genes, the attachment of
transcription factors (TFs) and their binding sites (TFBSs), located at specific gene promoters,
influences transcription and modulates RNA production from a particular gene, thus establishing
a first level of functional interaction. Since the TFs are gene-encoded polypeptides and the target
TFBSs belong to different genes, analyses of TFs-TFBSs interactions could reveal gene
networks and may even contribute to elucidate unknown GRNs [7]. Besides contributing to infer
and understand these interactions, determining GRNs also provides models of such connections
[8]. GRNs could be the basis to infer more complex networks, encompassing gene, protein, and
metabolic spaces, as well as the entangled and often overlooked signaling pathways that
interconnect them [9-13].
The core GRN apparatus consists of the sum of cis-regulatory modular DNA sequence elements
that interact with TFs. These sequences read and process information incoming from the cell,
transducing it into the formation of gene products while modulating their abundance [14]. To
make them easier to understand, GRN models must be genome-oriented and viewable at
different levels, from global patterns of gene expression, down to cis-regulatory DNA and
nucleotide sequences [15].
Interactions among genes are mediated by gene products such as DNA-binding proteins
(including TFs) and miRNAs. The analyses of gene interactions can be difficult if time-series
data are part of the experimental design [16]. Analysis of genes, gene products and metabolism
(the Three Spaces of gene networks) would require additional computing resources. Among the
previously ignored components of gene networking are miRNAs [17, 18]. In addition to their
3

importance as regulatory elements in gene expression, the capacity of miRNAs to be transported
from cell to cell implicates them in a panoply of pathophysiological processes that include
antiviral defense, tumorigenesis, lipometabolism and glucose metabolism [16]. This role in
disease complicates our understanding of translational regulation via endogenous miRNAs. In
addition, miRNAs seem to be present in different types of foods [19] with potential implications
on human health and disease. Understanding the biogenesis, transport and mechanisms of action
of miRNAs on their target RNA would result in possible therapies, requiring large amounts of
computational power, which can be attained by cloud computing and process parallelizing.
Detailed experimental analysis of several functional regulatory elements has revealed that they
consist of dense clusters of unique, short DNA sequences specifically recognized by a range of
TFs. Biochemically, protein-binding to these sequences controls the regulatory output of the
clusters and, from an informational perspective, clustered specific target sites determine the type
of regulatory outcome and the cellular functions that will be performed. GRNs are encoded in the
DNA and can be thought of as a sequence-dependent regulatory genome, given that TFs
recognize specific short DNA motifs. The small length of these motifs means that they will occur
frequently but randomly within the enormity of the total genome of a particular organism [2022]. Therefore, to parse functional regulatory elements using bioinformatics requires the analysis
of copious amounts of genomic data.
Analyses of time-series data from microarrays can show the chronological expression of specific
genes or groups of genes. These temporal patterns can be used to infer or propose causal
relationships in gene regulation [23]. Thus, genes in logical networks can modulate the extent of
each other’s gene expression over the life span of a cell or a whole organism. Time-series
microarray data sheds light on a complex but measurable regulatory system, allowing for a more
precise inference of gene interaction.
Numerous algorithms have been developed for inferring GRNs [24-27]. In this paper, we present
a new approach, tailored to cloud computing, to infer GRNs using time-series microarray data.
Using time as a variable in the analysis of GRNs permits the study of changes in cellular
phenotype, as opposed to a snapshot in a limited time frame that may reveal static interactions
but not progression of gene expression phenomena. The time-series datasets used in this work
4

come from DREAM4 challenges [28-31] and an Affymetrix Yeast Genome 2.0 Array
downloaded from NCBI’s Gene Expression Omnibus. The array contains 5,744 probe sets and
includes 10,928 Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes with 49 time points and transcriptional
oscillations of about 4 hours. These oscillations reveal cell redox states, which in turn result from
changes in metabolic fluxes and cell cycle phases [32].
As knowledge in several biological fields leads to an ever-expanding accumulation in gene
expression data, the main consideration in data processing is that analysis of information
becomes increasingly time-consuming, thus creating a demand to speed up the analytical
process. In order to obtain results more expeditiously, we develop information-theoretic
algorithms using MapReduce that run on a distributed, multi-node Apache Hadoop cluster in a
cloud environment. Cloud resources are increasingly more flexible and affordable compared with
local traditional computing resources. Cloud computing advantages in the field of bioinformatics
research are well known [33-39].

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Framework
Previous information-theoretic algorithms for network inference were implemented in the R
programming language using steady state data [40] and time-series data [23]. The tool using
steady state data is named ARACNE [40] and the tool using time-series data is named
TimeDelay-ARACNE [23]. ARACNE infers an undirected network, which basically shows
whether two genes are mutually dependent rather than the regulatory relationship between the
genes. In contrast, TimeDelay-ARACNE infers a directed network, in which an edge from gene
A to gene B indicates that A regulates the expression of B.
In contrast to the R-based ARACNE and TimeDelay-ARACNE, our proposed informationtheoretic framework is tailored to the MapReduce programming paradigm. Like TimeDelayARACNE [23], the input of our framework is a set of time-series gene expression data and the
output is an inferred gene regulatory network. The input dataset contains m genes, and each gene
has n expression values recorded at n different time points respectively. Our framework consists
of three steps. Step 1 aims to detect, for each gene g, the first time point t ( t  1 ) at which a
5

substantial change in the gene expression of g with respect to the gene expression of g at time
point 1 takes place. This t is referred to as the time point of Substantial Change of Expression
(ScE) of gene g, denoted ScE ( g ). Step 2 calculates, for two genes g x and g y , the influence of
g x on g y , denoted influence( g x , g y ), based on the ScE values of the genes. Step 3 determines the

edges between genes using their influence values. Below we present details of the proposed
framework.
Step 1. Calculation of ScE
Let g(t) be the expression value of gene g at time point t. We say g is activated (or induced) at
time point t ( t  1 ) if

g (t )
  where   1 is a threshold. We say g is inhibited (or repressed) at
g (1)

time point t ( t  1 ) if

g (t ) 1
 . For each gene g, we maintain two sets of time points: g  (t ) and
g (1) 

g  (t ); g  (t ) contains all time points at which g is induced and g  (t ) contains all time points at

which g is repressed. Initially, g  (t )   and g  (t )  . The two sets of time points are then
updated as follows. For each time point t ( t  1 ),

If

1





if

g (t )


  , then g (t )  g (t )  {t},
g (1)

if

g (t ) 1
 , then g  (t )  g  (t )  {t}.
g (1) 

g (t )
  , then g is neither induced nor repressed at time point t. In this case, we simply
g (1)

ignore this time point t without adding t to g  (t ) or g  (t). The value of  used in this study is set
to 1.2. With this threshold value and datasets used in the study (DREAM4 [28-31]), there is a
significant difference between the mean of the gene expression values of the time points at which
g is induced and the mean of the gene expression values of the time points at which g is
repressed according to Student’s t-test (p < 0.05).
Let ScE ( g ) represent the first time point t ( t  1 ) at which g is either induced or repressed, i.e.,
ScE( g )  min{g  (t )  g  (t )} .

6

For any two genes ga and gb , there are three cases to be considered.
Case 1: ScE ( ga )  ScE ( gb ). We send the ordered pair ( ga , gb ) and the expression values of the
two genes to step 2.
Case 2: ScE ( gb )  ScE ( ga ). We send the ordered pair ( gb , ga ) and the expression values of the
two genes to step 2.
Case 3: ScE ( ga )  ScE ( gb ). We send ga , gb with a tag indicating both of the ordered pairs ( ga ,

gb ) and ( gb , ga ) should be considered, together with their gene expression values.
Step 2. Calculation of influence values
For each pair of genes ( g x , g y ) received from step 1, we calculate the time-delayed mutual
information [41] between the genes as follows:
I

k

(k )
(gx , g y ) 



1 i  n  k

p ( g ix ,

g iy k ) log

i

i k

p(g x , g y
i

)

i k

p(g x ) p(g y

)

(1)

where n is the total number of time points, p( g ix ) is the marginal distribution of g ix , and
p( g ix , g iyk ) is the joint distribution of g ix and g iy k . (In our implementation, a hash table is used

to calculate the joint distribution to save time and space.) The parameter k, 1  k  h, represents
the length of delayed time and h is the maximum length of delayed time. (In the study presented
here, h is set to 3.) The notation g ix denotes the gene expression of g x at time point i and g iy k
is the gene expression of g y at time point i + k. Figure 1 illustrates how to calculate time-delayed
mutual information. There are 21 time points in Figure 1. The length of delayed time is 2 (i.e., k
= 2). Each rectangle represents the gene expression value obtained at some time point. Mutual

7

Figure 1: Illustration of how to calculate time-delayed mutual information.
information of rectangles with the same color is computed. Then, the influence of g x on g y is
calculated as follows:
k

(k )

influence ( g x , g y )  max { I ( g x , g y )} .
1 k  h

(2)

Referring to the three cases in step 1, for case 1, we calculate influence( ga , gb ), and send ( ga , gb )
and influence( ga , gb ) to step 3. For case 2, we calculate influence( gb , ga ), and send ( gb , ga ) and
influence( gb , ga ) to step 3. For case 3, if influence( ga , gb )  influence( gb , ga ), then we send ( ga ,
gb ) and influence( ga , gb ) to step 3; otherwise we send ( gb , ga ) and influence( gb , ga ) to step 3.

Step 3. Determination of edges between genes
Let  be a threshold. For each pair ( g x , g y ) received from step 2, if influence( g x , g y )   then we
create an edge from g x to g y indicating g x substantially influences g y or g x regulates the
expression of gy , i.e., there is a predicted present edge from g x to g y . If influence( g x , g y )  
then we do not create an edge from g x to gy , i.e., there is a predicted absent edge from g x to
g y . With the predicted present and absent edges, we are able to infer or reconstruct a gene

regulatory network. The value of  used in this study is set to 0.96. With this threshold value
and datasets used in the study (DREAM4 [28-31]), there is a significant difference between the
8

mean of the influence values of the predicted present edges and the mean of the influence values
of the predicted absent edges according to Student’s t-test (p < 0.05).

2.2. MapReduce Algorithms
Figure 2 presents a high-level conceptual description of the Hadoop MapReduce implementation
of our proposed framework. The system includes a driver, and one or more mappers and
reducers. The driver takes the input from the user, including the locations of input and output
files, as well as algorithm parameters and thresholds. The driver prepares a job with the required
configuration, sends the job to Hadoop to start it, and calculates the time the job takes to
complete. The mappers are user-defined programs (UDPs), which prepare data and perform
calculations, if needed, and then send the processed data (key-value pairs) to the reducers. The
reducers are also UDPs, which perform the final processing and write the results into the output
file. Hadoop optimizes the number of mappers for a job. The user can control the number of
reducers needed for completing the job. The Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS) is a global
repository for storage of the input flat file (in plain text format) with gene expression data and
the output file with an inferred gene regulatory network.
Each gene has an identifier. (We use g x to represent both a gene and its identifier when the
context is clear.) Each line in the input file contains a pair of genes and their expression values.
Genes are sorted based on their identifiers. Each pair of genes g x , g y occurs in the input file only
once; specifically, the gene pair in which the identifier of g x is less than the identifier of g y
occurs in the input file. Suppose there are m genes. There are (m × m−1)/2 lines in the input file.

We develop four MapReduce algorithms, named M0, M1, M2, and M3 respectively. These
algorithms differ in which steps, as described in Section 2.1, are performed by mappers.
Algorithm M0. In this algorithm, mappers perform zero steps. Reducers have to do steps 1, 2

and 3. In the key-value pairs transmitted between mappers and reducers, the key is a pair of
genes, and the value contains the expression profiles of the genes.

9

Figure 2: Conceptual description of the Hadoop MapReduce implementation of our proposed

algorithms.
Algorithm M1. In this algorithm, mappers perform step 1. Reducers have to do steps 2 and 3. In

the key-value pairs transmitted between mappers and reducers, the key is a pair of genes and the
value contains the expression profiles of the genes. Part of the value is a tag indicating which
case in step 1 applies to the pair of genes.
Algorithm M2. In this algorithm, mappers have to do steps 1 and 2. Reducers perform step 3. In

the key-value pairs transmitted between mappers and reducers, the key is an ordered pair of
genes ( g x , g y ) and the value is influence( gx , g y ).
Algorithm M3. In this algorithm, mappers have to do steps 1, 2 and 3. Reducers perform zero

steps. In the key-value pairs transmitted between mappers and reducers, the key is the edge
gx



g y and the value is the influence of g x on g y that exceeds the threshold  .
10

The time needed by mappers is bounded by O(m2 / M ) and the time needed by reducers is
bounded by O(m2 / R), where m is the number of genes, M is the number of mappers and R is the
number of reducers. Thus, the time complexity of our MapReduce algorithms is O(m2 / M ) +
O(m2 / R) . Note that this is a very pessimistic upper bound since reducers often work in parallel

with mappers, and hence the actual time needed by the algorithms is much less. Note also that, in
practice, M > R, and hence the time complexity of our algorithms is bounded by O(m2 / R) .

3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Experimental Results
The four algorithms described in Section 2.2 were implemented in MapReduce and Java on a
Hadoop infrastructure (cloud), which is a virtual environment based on VMware Big Data
Extensions (BDE). The infrastructure hardware cluster associated with BDE is comprised of two
IBM iDataPlex dx360 M4 servers. Each dx360 M4 server is comprised of two Intel Xeon
2.7GHz E5-2680 (8 Core) CPUs for a total of 16 cores per server. With the enabling of
hyperthreading, the number of logical processors is doubled to provide 32 logical processors per
server. Each server has 128 GB RAM.
The dataset used in the experiments was GSE30052 [32], downloaded from the Gene Expression
Omnibus (GEO) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/. This dataset was created using an
Affymetrix Yeast Genome 2.0 Array containing 5,744 probe sets for S. cerevisiae gene
expression analysis. The dataset contains 10,928 genes with 49 time points. The dataset is split
into key-value pairs as described in Section 2.2 and the input file has (10,928 × 10,927)/2 lines,
taking up 26.8 GB of disk space. Hadoop assigns 254 mappers to this dataset. The default value
for the number of reducers is set to 20.
We divided GSE30052 into smaller datasets that were subsets of GSE30052 with varying
numbers of genes. Figure 3 compares the running times of the four MapReduce algorithms
described in Section 2.2 for varying dataset sizes. It can be seen from the figure that all the four
algorithms scale well when the dataset size becomes large (i.e., the number of genes increases).
Algorithm M2 performs the best. This happens because with M2, the mappers, working in
11

Figure 3: Performance comparison of the four MapReduce algorithms.

parallel, share some workload with the reducers, which perform a relatively smaller amount of
computation while writing results into the output file. It is worth noting that M2 is better than
M3, in which the mappers have to do all the computation. Algorithm M0 performs the worst.
With M0, the reducers have to do all the calculations and become too busy to quickly complete
the job.
We then fixed the algorithm and used M2 in all subsequent experiments. Figure 4 shows running
times of the M2 algorithm with 1, 20, and 100 reducers respectively. It can be seen that the
optimal number of reducers is 20. With this configuration, the reducers work at their maximum
limit. When there are too many (e.g., 100) reducers, the overhead is too large, and as a
consequence the system is slowed down. On the other hand, when only one reducer is employed,
the reducer is overloaded and the overall performance of the system degrades.
Finally, we conducted experiments to compare the MapReduce implementation of the M2
algorithm running on the Hadoop cluster (denoted MRC), the MapReduce implementation of the
M2 algorithm running on a standalone single-node server (denoted MRS), the Java
implementation of the M2 algorithm running on a single-node server, and the R implementation
12

Figure 4: Effect of the number of reducers on the performance of the M2 algorithm.

of the related time-delayed mutual information algorithm, TimeDelay-ARACNE [23]. In Figure
5, it can be seen that MRC is highly scalable and that it outperforms the other three programs.
Notably, due to Hadoop’s overhead, MRS is even slower than the Java program. The R program
is not scalable; its running time dramatically increases as the dataset becomes large.

3.2. Discussion
Our information-theoretic algorithms for inferring gene regulatory networks are implemented in
MapReduce and run on a Hadoop cluster. A tool that is closely related to our work is the
TimeDelay-ARACNE program in R [23], which also infers gene regulatory networks from timeseries gene expression profiles using an information-theoretic approach. As shown in Figure 5,
the TimeDelay-ARACNE program in R does not scale well whereas our MapReduce program is
highly scalable when running on the Hadoop cluster. Furthermore, our MapReduce program
differs from the TimeDelay-ARACNE R program in that our algorithm is deterministic
whereas the R program is implemented based on a non-deterministic algorithm, specifically
Markov random fields. For the same dataset and parameter values, the R program produces
different results in different executions. In contrast, our MapReduce program always produces

13

Figure 5: Performance comparison of the MapReduce algorithm (M2) and related programs.

the same result, in different executions, for the same dataset.
To evaluate the accuracy of these programs, we adopted the five time-series gene expression
datasets available in the DREAM4 100-gene in silico network inference challenge [28-31]. Each
dataset contains 10 times series, where each time series has 21 time points, for 100 genes. Thus,
in each time series, each gene has 21 gene expression values. Totally, there are 50 time series in
the five datasets. Each time-series dataset is associated with a gold standard file, where the gold
standard represents the ground truth of the network structure for the time-series data. Each edge
in the gold standard represents a true regulatory relationship between two genes. Our
experimental results showed that the average accuracy of TimeDelay-ARACNE on the five
datasets is approximately 92.4%. The average accuracy of our deterministic algorithm (M2) is
about 93.1%, which is slightly better than TimeDelay-ARACNE. It was observed that, in a
dataset, when M2 is better than TimeDelay-ARACNE, it has a higher accuracy than TimeDelayARACNE for every execution of TimeDelay-ARACNE on the dataset. Furthermore, our
MapReduce program (M2) takes, on average, 20 seconds to infer a gene regulatory network on a
DREAM4 dataset while the average time used by the TimeDelay-ARACNE R program is 3,500
seconds.
14

We also tested on different values for the parameters  ,  , and the maximum length of delayed
time, h, used in the proposed algorithms. Experimental results showed that the default values for
these parameters (   1.2,   0.96, h  3 ) achieve the highest accuracy. When compared with other
parameter values (e.g., the maximum length of delayed time h  6,   0.35 or   2 ), the accuracy
achieved by the default parameter values is significantly higher than the accuracy achieved by
the other parameter values according to Wilcoxon signed rank tests [42] (p < 0.05).

4. Conclusions
We have presented four MapReduce algorithms for reconstructing gene regulatory networks
from time-series microarray data using an information-theoretic approach. Our experimental
results showed that the algorithm (M2) that uses mappers to perform a large portion of work and
reducers to perform a relatively small amount of computation achieves the best performance.
This M2 algorithm is faster than an algorithm in which the mappers have to do all the
computation. Moreover, the M2 algorithm is much faster than another algorithm in which the
reducers have to do all the computation and become too busy to quickly complete the job.
When tested on DREAM4 datasets with 100 genes in each dataset, our MapReduce program
(M2) is slightly better than a closely related R program (TimeDelay-ARACNE [23]) in terms of
accuracy; furthermore, our MapReduce program is much faster than the existing R program.
When tested on a big dataset (GSE30052 [32]) with 10,928 genes, our MapReduce program was
found to be highly scalable whereas the R program was not (cf. Figure 5). It should be pointed
out, however, that the comparison with the TimeDelay-ARACNE R program is not completely
fair. Our MapReduce program is based on a parallel algorithm whereas the TimeDelayARACNE R program is based on a sequential algorithm. Further study would be needed to
investigate parallel versions of the R program or a new TimeDelay-ARACNE R package that
supports parallelization.
The work presented here shows that distributing highly parallel tasks in a cloud environment
achieves higher performance than running the tasks in a standalone or non-cloud environments.
In general, cloud computing can provide the power to integrate the ever-increasing information
about the Three Spaces of gene networks [8] as well as the multi-pronged signal transduction
15

pathways traversing these spaces. Comprehending systems biology and functional genomics
could eventually contribute to a better grasp of organismal physiology. Thus, the cloud would
provide computing power that is needed as the analysis of multilevel processes becomes more
complicated. Cloud computing will enable genome-scale network inference as demonstrated in
this study.
Epigenetics [43] is an emerging aspect of gene regulation whose study would require enormous
computing capacity. This type of posttranslational regulation cross-talk involves chemical
modifications of DNA and histones in a process known as chromatin remodeling. The role of
genetic and epigenetic networks in a variety of health conditions is now coming into view. For
example, there are at least 450 different genes associated with intellectual disability and related
cognitive disorders. Some of these genes are involved in synaptic plasticity and cell signaling
whereas others are epigenetic genes involved in chromatin modifications [44]. Analysis of the
interactions across these genes and networks, as well as finding new mutations, will require the
development of highly expeditious bioinformatics tools to mine the anticipated high amounts of
data.
Genome-scale metabolic models are becoming essential in biomedical applications, and
researchers are moving towards building such models [45]. MapReduce algorithms could
become a powerful tool in the analyses of all aspects of gene networking in the Three Spaces
paradigm. In general, cloud computing could facilitate the handling of the vast amounts of
information (big data) that such analyses require.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank N. Patel and L. Zhong for useful conversations concerning gene network
inference.

16

References
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.

14.
15.

16.
17.

Schadt, E.E., S. Turner, and A. Kasarskis, A window into third-generation sequencing.
Hum Mol Genet, 2010. 19(R2): p. R227-40.
Angelini, C. and V. Costa, Understanding gene regulatory mechanisms by integrating
ChIP-seq and RNA-seq data: statistical solutions to biological problems. Front Cell Dev
Biol, 2014. 2: p. 51.
Qin, J., Y. Hu, F. Xu, H.K. Yalamanchili, and J. Wang, Inferring gene regulatory
networks by integrating ChIP-seq/chip and transcriptome data via LASSO-type
regularization methods. Methods, 2014. 67(3): p. 294-303.
Brown, J.B. and S.E. Celniker, Lessons from modENCODE. Annu Rev Genomics Hum
Genet, 2015. 16: p. 31-53.
Filkov, V., S. Skiena, and J. Zhi, Analysis techniques for microarray time-series data. J
Comput Biol, 2002. 9(2): p. 317-30.
Zhu, F., L. Shi, J.D. Engel, and Y. Guan, Regulatory network inferred using expression
data of small sample size: application and validation in erythroid system. Bioinformatics,
2015. 31(15): p. 2537-44.
Werner, T., S.M. Dombrowski, C. Zgheib, F.A. Zouein, H.L. Keen, M. Kurdi, and G.W.
Booz, Elucidating functional context within microarray data by integrated transcription
factor-focused gene-interaction and regulatory network analysis. Eur Cytokine Netw,
2013. 24(2): p. 75-90.
Brazhnik, P., A. de la Fuente, and P. Mendes, Gene networks: how to put the function in
genomics. Trends Biotechnol, 2002. 20(11): p. 467-72.
Ideker, T. and N.J. Krogan, Differential network biology. Mol Syst Biol, 2012. 8: p. 565.
Margolin, A.A., K. Wang, W.K. Lim, M. Kustagi, I. Nemenman, and A. Califano,
Reverse engineering cellular networks. Nat Protoc, 2006. 1(2): p. 662-71.
Kibinge, N., N. Ono, M. Horie, T. Sato, T. Sugiura, M. Altaf-Ul-Amin, A. Saito, and S.
Kanaya, Integrated pathway-based transcription regulation network mining and
visualization based on gene expression profiles. J Biomed Inform, 2016. 61: p. 194-202.
Altaf-Ul-Amin, M., F.M. Afendi, S.K. Kiboi, and S. Kanaya, Systems biology in the
context of big data and networks. Biomed Res Int, 2014. 2014: p. 428570.
Altaf-Ul-Amin, M., T. Katsuragi, T. Sato, and S. Kanaya, A glimpse to background and
characteristics of major molecular biological networks. Biomed Res Int, 2015. 2015: p.
540297.
Karlebach, G. and R. Shamir, Modelling and analysis of gene regulatory networks. Nat
Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2008. 9(10): p. 770-80.
Longabaugh, W.J., E.H. Davidson, and H. Bolouri, Visualization, documentation,
analysis, and communication of large-scale gene regulatory networks. Biochim Biophys
Acta, 2009. 1789(4): p. 363-74.
Xu, L., B.F. Yang, and J. Ai, MicroRNA transport: a new way in cell communication. J
Cell Physiol, 2013. 228(8): p. 1713-9.
Chen, K. and N. Rajewsky, The evolution of gene regulation by transcription factors and
microRNAs. Nat Rev Genet, 2007. 8(2): p. 93-103.

17

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

25.

26.
27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.
34.

Zhong, L., J.T.L. Wang, D. Wen, V. Aris, P. Soteropoulos, and B.A. Shapiro, Effective
classification of microRNA precursors using feature mining and AdaBoost algorithms.
OMICS, 2013. 17(9): p. 486-93.
Wagner, A.E., S. Piegholdt, M. Ferraro, K. Pallauf, and G. Rimbach, Food derived
microRNAs. Food Funct, 2015. 6(3): p. 714-8.
Longabaugh, W.J., E.H. Davidson, and H. Bolouri, Computational representation of
developmental genetic regulatory networks. Dev Biol, 2005. 283(1): p. 1-16.
Levine, M. and E.H. Davidson, Gene regulatory networks for development. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, 2005. 102(14): p. 4936-42.
Davidson, E.H. and D.H. Erwin, Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal
body plans. Science, 2006. 311(5762): p. 796-800.
Zoppoli, P., S. Morganella, and M. Ceccarelli, TimeDelay-ARACNE: reverse engineering
of gene networks from time-course data by an information theoretic approach. BMC
Bioinformatics, 2010. 11: p. 154.
Maetschke, S.R., P.B. Madhamshettiwar, M.J. Davis, and M.A. Ragan, Supervised, semisupervised and unsupervised inference of gene regulatory networks. Brief Bioinform,
2014. 15(2): p. 195-211.
Marbach, D., R.J. Prill, T. Schaffter, C. Mattiussi, D. Floreano, and G. Stolovitzky,
Revealing strengths and weaknesses of methods for gene network inference. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, 2010. 107(14): p. 6286-91.
Patel, N. and J.T.L. Wang, Semi-supervised prediction of gene regulatory networks using
machine learning algorithms. J Biosci, 2015. 40(4): p. 731-40.
Turki, T. and J.T.L. Wang. A new approach to link prediction in gene regulatory
networks. in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Intelligent Data
Engineering and Automated Learning. 2015.
Greenfield, A., A. Madar, H. Ostrer, and R. Bonneau, DREAM4: combining genetic and
dynamic information to identify biological networks and dynamical models. PLoS One,
2010. 5(10): p. e13397.
Marbach, D., T. Schaffter, C. Mattiussi, and D. Floreano, Generating realistic in silico
gene networks for performance assessment of reverse engineering methods. J Comput
Biol, 2009. 16(2): p. 229-39.
Prill, R.J., D. Marbach, J. Saez-Rodriguez, P.K. Sorger, L.G. Alexopoulos, X. Xue, N.D.
Clarke, G. Altan-Bonnet, and G. Stolovitzky, Towards a rigorous assessment of systems
biology models: the DREAM3 challenges. PLoS One, 2010. 5(2): p. e9202.
Schaffter, T., D. Marbach, and D. Floreano, GeneNetWeaver: in silico benchmark
generation and performance profiling of network inference methods. Bioinformatics,
2011. 27(16): p. 2263-70.
Chin, S.L., I.M. Marcus, R.R. Klevecz, and C.M. Li, Dynamics of oscillatory phenotypes
in Saccharomyces cerevisiae reveal a network of genome-wide transcriptional
oscillators. FEBS J, 2012. 279(6): p. 1119-30.
Langmead, B., K.D. Hansen, and J.T. Leek, Cloud-scale RNA-sequencing differential
expression analysis with Myrna. Genome Biol, 2010. 11(8): p. R83.
Nguyen, T., W. Shi, and D. Ruden, CloudAligner: A fast and full-featured MapReduce
based tool for sequence mapping. BMC Res Notes, 2011. 4: p. 171.

18

35.
36.

37.

38.
39.

40.

41.
42.

43.
44.
45.

Schatz, M.C., CloudBurst: highly sensitive read mapping with MapReduce.
Bioinformatics, 2009. 25(11): p. 1363-9.
Zhao, S., K. Prenger, L. Smith, T. Messina, H. Fan, E. Jaeger, and S. Stephens, Rainbow:
a tool for large-scale whole-genome sequencing data analysis using cloud computing.
BMC Genomics, 2013. 14: p. 425.
Mohammed, E.A., B.H. Far, and C. Naugler, Applications of the MapReduce
programming framework to clinical big data analysis: current landscape and future
trends. BioData Min, 2014. 7: p. 22.
Zou, Q., X.B. Li, W.R. Jiang, Z.Y. Lin, G.L. Li, and K. Chen, Survey of MapReduce
frame operation in bioinformatics. Brief Bioinform, 2014. 15(4): p. 637-47.
O'Driscoll, A., V. Belogrudov, J. Carroll, K. Kropp, P. Walsh, P. Ghazal, and R.D.
Sleator, HBLAST: Parallelised sequence similarity--A Hadoop MapReducable basic
local alignment search tool. J Biomed Inform, 2015. 54: p. 58-64.
Margolin, A.A., I. Nemenman, K. Basso, C. Wiggins, G. Stolovitzky, R. Dalla Favera,
and A. Califano, ARACNE: an algorithm for the reconstruction of gene regulatory
networks in a mammalian cellular context. BMC Bioinformatics, 2006. 7 Suppl 1: p. S7.
Fraser, A.M. and H.L. Swinney, Independent coordinates for strange attractors from
mutual information. Phys Rev A 1986. 33: p. 1134.
Song, Y., L. Hua, B.A. Shapiro, and J.T.L. Wang, Effective alignment of RNA pseudoknot
structures using partition function posterior log-odds scores. BMC Bioinformatics, 2015.
16: p. 39.
Li, E., Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian
development. Nat Rev Genet, 2002. 3(9): p. 662-73.
van Bokhoven, H., Genetic and epigenetic networks in intellectual disabilities. Annu Rev
Genet, 2011. 45: p. 81-104.
Zhang, C., B. Ji, A. Mardinoglu, J. Nielsen, and Q. Hua, Logical transformation of
genome-scale metabolic models for gene level applications and analysis. Bioinformatics,
2015. 31(14): p. 2324-31.

19

