Abstract
Background Identifying the set of disease-causing genes is crucial for understanding pathogenesis and developing therapies. This is particularly important to understand the pathophysiology of Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) and other gastrointestinal diseases. Comparing and contrasting gene selection methods across these diseases can enhance our knowledge to identify potential therapeutic targets.
Methods This study introduces two approaches for gene selection in gastrointestinal diseases: the Ranked Variance (RV) method and Differential Gene Expression Based Simulated Annealing (DGESA). RV acts as an initial screener by prioritizing genes based on variance. DGESA refines gene selection further by employing simulated annealing with differential expression data. We compared the outcomes of both methods through a case study on EoE and other gastrointestinal diseases.
Results Result finds greater number of genes with negative fold changes compared to those with positive fold change in differential EoE dataset. RV Ranks top 40 genes with high variance of EoE which overlaps with the disease-causing gene set of EoE from DGESA. 40 gene pathways for each of EoE, Crohn’s Disease (CD), and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) were identified as execution outcome of our method DGESA. Among these, 10 genes for EoE, 8 for CD, and 7 for UC were confirmed in the literature for their connection with respective diseases. For EoE, 10 such confirmed genes include KRT79, CRISP2, IL36G, SPRR2B, SPRR2D and SPRR2E. For CD, the literature confirmed set encompasses NPDC1, SLC2A4RG, LGALS8, CDKN1A, XAF1, and CYBA. The validated genes in UC final gene set includes TRAF3, BAG6, CCDC80, CDC42SE2, and HSPA9.
Conclusion The RV method, serving as an initial screener, and the more refined DGESA both effectively elucidate molecular signatures in gastrointestinal diseases. Identifying and validating genes like SPRR2B, SPRR2D, SPRR2E and STAT6 for EoE showcase efficacy of DGESA. Other genes in the same pathway are interesting targets for future laboratory validation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Abstract section is rewritten to be more specific. Affiation and line number is included. The final paragraph of Introduction section updated. Figure 1 modified. Transfer two Tables from Supplement to manuscript for better understandability. Discussion Section is added. Conclusion Section modified to be more specific. ORCID ID's of most of the authors addaed. Many references incorporated.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors