The NetRep package provides functions for assessing the preservation of network modules across datasets.
This type of analysis is suitable where networks can be meaningfully inferred from multiple datasets. These include gene coexpression networks, protein-protein interaction networks, and microbial co-occurence networks. Modules within these networks consist of groups of nodes that are particularly interesting: for example a group of tightly connected genes associated with a disease, groups of genes annotated with the same term in the Gene Ontology database, or groups of interacting microbial species, i.e. communities.
Application of this method can answer questions such as:
A typical workflow for a NetRep analysis will usually contain the following steps, usually as separate scripts.
NetRep and its dependencies require several third party libraries to be installed. If not found, installation of the package will fail.
C++11support for the
The following sections provide operating system specific advice for getting NetRep working if installation through R fails.
are provided with the
Xcode application and subsequent
Command line tools. The most recent version
of OSX should prompt you to install these tools when installing the
devtools package from RStudio. Those with older versions of
OSX should be able to install these tools by typing the following
command into their Terminal application:
Some users on OSX Mavericks have reported that even after this step
they receive errors relating to
-lquadmath. This is reportedly solved by installing the
gfortran used to compile the R binary for OSX:
gfortran-4.8.2. This can be done using the following
commands in your
curl -O http://r.research.att.com/libs/gfortran-4.8.2-darwin13.tar.bz2 sudo tar fvxz gfortran-4.8.2-darwin13.tar.bz2 -C /
For Windows users NetRep requires R version 3.3.0 or
later. The necessary
compilers are provided with the
Rtools program. We
recommend installation of
RStudio, which should prompt the user and install these
tools when running
devtools::install_github("InouyeLab/NetRep"). You may need
to run this command again after
If installation fails when compiling NetRep at
permutations.cpp with an error about
namespace thread, you will need to install a newer version
of your compiler that supports this
C++11 feature. We have
found that this works on versions of
gcc as old as
If installation fails prior to this step it is likely that you will
need to install the necessary compilers and libraries, then reinstall R.
fortran compilers we recommend
gfortran from the
appropriate package manager for your operating system
apt-get for Ubuntu).
LAPACK libraries can be installed by installing
liblapack-dev. Note that these
libraries must be installed prior to installation of
Any NetRep analysis requires the following data to be provided and pre-computed for each dataset:
There are many different approaches to network inference and module detection. For gene expression data, we recommend using Weighted Gene Coexpression Network Analysis through the WGCNA package. For microbial abundance data we recommend the Python program SparCC. Microbial communities (modules) can then be defined as any group of significantly co-occuring microbes.
For this vignette, we will use gene expression data simulated for two independent cohorts. The discovery dataset was simulated to contain four modules of varying size, two of which (Modules 1 and 4) replicate in the test dataset.
Details of the simulation are provided in the documentation for the
package data (see
This data is provided with the NetRep package:
This command loads seven objects into the R session:
discovery_data: a matrix with 150 columns (genes) and 30 rows (samples) whose entries correspond to the expression level of each gene in each sample in the discovery dataset.
discovery_correlation: a matrix with 150 columns and 150 rows containing the correlation-coefficients between each pair of genes calculated from the
discovery_network: a matrix with 150 columns and 150 rows containing the network edge weights encoding the interaction strength between each pair of genes in the discovery dataset.
module_labels: a named vector with 150 entries containing the module assignment for each gene as identified in the discovery dataset. Here, we’ve given genes that are not part of any module/group the label “0”.
test_data: a matrix with 150 columns (genes) and 30 rows (samples) whose entries correspond to the expression level of each gene in each sample in the test dataset.
test_correlation: a matrix with 150 columns and 150 rows containing the correlation-coefficients between each pair of genes calculated from the
test_network: a matrix with 150 columns and 150 rows containing the network edge weights encoding the interaction strength between each pair of genes in the test dataset.
Next, we will combine these objects into list structures. All functions in the NetRep package take the following arguments:
network: a list of interaction networks, one for each dataset.
data: a list of data matrices used to infer those networks, one for each dataset.
correlation: a list of matrices containing the pairwise correlation coefficients between variables/nodes in each dataset.
moduleAssignments: a list of vectors, one for each discovery dataset, containing the module assignments for each node in that dataset.
modules: a list of vectors, one vector for each discovery dataset, containing the names of the modules from that dataset to run the function on.
discovery: a vector indicating the names or indices to use as the discovery datasets in the
test: a list of vectors, one vector for each discovery dataset, containing the names or indices of the
correlationargument lists to use as the test dataset(s) for the analysis of each discovery dataset.
Each of these lists may contain any number of datasets. The names
provided to each list are used by the
test arguments to determine which datasets to compare. More
than one dataset can be specified in each of these arguments, for
example when performing a pairwise analysis of gene coexpression modules
identified in multiple tissues.
Typically we would put the code that reads in our data and sets up the input lists in its own script. This loading script can then be called from our scripts where we calculate the module preservation, visualise our networks, and calculate the network properties:
# Read in the data: data("NetRep") # Set up the input data structures for NetRep. We will call these datasets # "cohort1" and "cohort2" to avoid confusion with the "discovery" and "test" # arguments in NetRep's functions: <- list(cohort1=discovery_data, cohort2=test_data) data_list <- list(cohort1=discovery_correlation, cohort2=test_correlation) correlation_list <- list(cohort1=discovery_network, cohort2=test_network) network_list # We do not need to set up a list for the 'moduleAssignments', 'modules', or # 'test' arguments because there is only one "discovery" dataset.
We will call these “cohort1” and “cohort2” to avoid confusion with the arguments “discovery” and “test” common to NetRep’s functions.
Now we will use NetRep to permutation test whether
the network topology of each module is preserved in our test dataset
modulePreservation function. This function
calculates seven module preservation statistics for each module (more on
these later), then performs a permutation procedure in the test dataset
to determine whether these statistics are significant.
We will run 10,000 permutations, and split calculation across 2
threads so that calculations are run in parallel. By default,
modulePreservaton will test the preservation of all
modules, excluding the network background which is assumed to have the
label “0”. This of course can be changed: there are many more arguments
than shown here which control how
help("modulePreservation") for a full list of
# Assess the preservation of modules in the test dataset. <- modulePreservation( preservation network=network_list, data=data_list, correlation=correlation_list, moduleAssignments=module_labels, discovery="cohort1", test="cohort2", nPerm=10000, nThreads=2 )
## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Validating user input... ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Checking matrices for problems... ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Input ok! ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Calculating preservation of network subsets from dataset "cohort1" in ## dataset "cohort2". ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Pre-computing network properties in dataset "cohort1"... ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Calculating observed test statistics... ## [2023-01-06 20:54:53 AEDT] Generating null distributions from 10000 permutations using 2 ## threads... ## ## 0% completed. 10% completed. 20% completed. 30% completed. 40% completed. 49% completed. 58% completed. 67% completed. 76% completed. 86% completed. 96% completed. 100% completed. ## ## [2023-01-06 20:55:04 AEDT] Calculating P-values... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:04 AEDT] Collating results... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Done!
The results returned by
modulePreservation for each
dataset comparison are a list containing seven elements:
nullsthe null distribution for each statistic and module generated by the permutation procedure.
observedthe observed value of each module preservation statistic for each module.
p.valuesthe p-values for each module preservation statistic for each module.
nVarsPresentthe number of variables in the discovery dataset that had corresponding measurements in the test dataset.
propVarsPresentthe proportion of nodes in each module that had corresponding measurements in the test dataset.
totalSizethe total number of nodes in the discovery network.
alternativethe alternate hypothesis used in the test (e.g. “the module preservation statistics are higher than expected by chance”).
If the test dataset has also had module discovery performed in it, a contigency table tabulating the overlap in module content between the two datasets is returned.
Let’s take a look at our results:
## avg.weight coherence cor.cor cor.degree cor.contrib avg.cor avg.contrib ## 1 0.161069393 0.6187688 0.78448573 0.90843993 0.8795006 0.550004272 0.76084777 ## 2 0.001872928 0.1359063 0.17270312 -0.03542772 0.5390504 0.034040922 0.23124826 ## 3 0.001957475 0.1263280 0.01121223 -0.17179855 -0.1074944 -0.007631867 0.05412794 ## 4 0.046291489 0.4871179 0.32610667 0.68122446 0.5251965 0.442614173 0.68239136
## avg.weight coherence cor.cor cor.degree cor.contrib avg.cor avg.contrib ## 1 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 ## 2 0.97760224 0.96440356 0.00869913 0.57164284 0.00219978 0.01759824 0.00589941 ## 3 0.99000100 0.98600140 0.41575842 0.81151885 0.71392861 0.99260074 0.87741226 ## 4 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00009999 0.00059994 0.00009999 0.00009999
For now, we will consider all statistics equally important, so we will consider a module to be preserved in “cohort2” if all the statistics have a permutation test P-value < 0.01:
# Get the maximum permutation test p-value <- apply(preservation$p.value, 1, max) max_pval max_pval
## 1 2 3 4 ## 0.00009999 0.97760224 0.99260074 0.00059994
Only modules 1 and 4 are reproducible at this significance threshold.
So what do these statistics measure? Let’s take a look at the network topology of Module 1 in the discovery dataset, “cohort1”:
From top to bottom, the plot shows:
Now, let’s take a look at the topology of Module 1 in the discovery and the test datasets side by side along with the module preservation statistics:
There are seven module preservation statistics:
A permutation procedure is necessary to determine whether the value of each statistic is significant: e.g. whether they are higher than expected by chance, i.e. when measuring the statistics between the module in the discovery dataset, and random sets of nodes in the test dataset.
By default, the permutation procedure will sample from only nodes
that are present in both datasets. This is appropriate where the
assumption is that any nodes that are present in the test dataset but
not the discovery dataset are unobserved in the discovery dataset:
i.e. they may very well fall in one of your modules of
interest. This is appropriate for microarray data. Alternatively, you
null="all", in which case the permutation procedure
will sample from all variables in the test dataset. This is appropriate
where the variable can be assumed not present in the discovery dataset:
for example microbial abundance or RNA-seq data.
You can also test whether these statistics are smaller than expected
by chance by changing the alternative hypothesis in the
The module preservation statistics that NetRep calculates were designed for weighted gene coexpression networks. These are complete networks: every gene is connected to every other gene with an edge weight of varying strength. Modules within these networks are groups of genes that are tightly connected or coexpressed.
For other types of networks, some statistics may be more suitable than others when assessing module preservation. Here, we provide some guidelines and pitfalls to be aware of when interpreting the network properties and module preservation statistics in other types of networks.
Sparse networks are networks where many edges have a “0” value: that is, networks where many nodes have no connection to each other. Typically these are networks where edges are defined as present if the relationship between nodes passes some pre-defined cut-off value, for example where genes are significantly correlated, or where the correlation between microbe presence and absence is significant. In these networks, edges may simply indicate presence or absence, or they may also carry a weight indicating the strength of the relationship.
For networks with unweighted edges, the average edge weight (‘avg.weight’) measures the proportion of nodes that are connected to each other. The weighted degree simply becomes the node degree: the number of connections each node has to any other node in the module.
If the network is sparse the permutation tests for the
correlation of weighted degree may be underpowered. Entries in
the null distribution will be
NA where there were no edges
between any nodes in the permuted module. This is because the
weighted degree will be 0 for all nodes, and the correlation
coefficient cannot be calculated between two vectors if all entries are
the same in either vector. This reduces the effective number of
permutations for that test: the permutation P-values will be calculated
NA entries, and the
modulePreservation function will generate a warning.
You may wish to consider
NA entries where there were no
edges as 0 when calculating the permutation test P-values. Note that an
NA entry does not necessarily mean that all edges in the
permuted module were 0: it can also mean that all edges are present and
have identical weights. To distinguish between these cases you should
check whether the
avg.weight is also 0.
The following code snippet shows how to identify these entries in the null distribution, replace them with zeros, and recalculate the permutation test P-values:
# Handling NA entries in the 'cor.degree' null distribution for sparse networks # Get the entries in the null distribution where there were no edges in the # permuted module <- which(is.na(preservation$nulls[,'cor.degree',])) na.entries <- which(preservation$nulls[,'avg.weight',][na.entries] == 0) no.edges # Set those entries to 0 $nulls[,'cor.degree',][no.edges] <- 0 preservation # Recalculate the permutation test p-values $p.values <- permutationTest( preservation$nulls, preservation$observed, preservation$nVarsPresent, preservation$totalSize, preservation$alternative preservation)
For networks where the edges are directed, the user should be aware
that the weighted degree is calculated as the column sum of the
module within the supplied
network matrix. This usually
means that the result will be the in-degree: the number and
combined weight of edges ending in each node. To calculate the
out-degree you will need to transpose the matrix supplied to
network argument (i.e. using the
Note that directed networks are typically sparse, and have the same pitfalls as sparse networks described above.
Sparse data is data where many entries are zero. Examples include microbial abundance data: where most microbes are present in only a few samples.
Users should be aware that the average node contribution (‘avg.contrib’), concordance of node contribution (‘cor.contrib’), and the module coherence (‘coherence’) will be systematically underestimated. They are all calculated from the node contribution, which measures the Pearson correlation coefficient between each node and the module summary. Pearson correlation coefficinets are inappropriate when data is sparse: their value will be underestimated when calculated between two vectors where many observations in either vector are equal to 0. However, this should not affect the permutation test P-values since observations in their null distributions will be similarly underestimated.
The biggest problem with sparse data is how to handle variables where
all observations are zero in either dataset. These will result in
NA values for their node contribution to a module
(or permuted module). These will be ignored by the average node
contribution (‘avg.contrib’), concordance of
node contribution (‘cor.contrib’), and module
coherence (‘coherence’) statistics: which only
take complete cases. This is problematic if many nodes have
NA values, since observations in their null distributions
will be for permuted modules of different sizes.
Their are two approaches to dealing with this issue:
NA. For microbial abundance data we recommend generating numbers between 0 and 1/the number of samples: the noise values should be small enough that the do not change the node contribution for microbes which are present in one or more samples.
For the latter, code to generate noise would look something like:
<- which(discovery_data == 0) not.present <- nrow(discovery_data) nSamples <- runif(length(not.present), min=0, max=1/nSamples)discovery_data[not.present]
Proportional data is data where the sum of measurements across each sample is equal to 1. Examples of this include RNA-seq data and microbial abundance read data.
Users should be aware that the average node contribution (‘avg.controb’), concordance of node contribution (‘cor.contrib’), and the module coherence (‘coherence’) will be systematically overestimated. They are all calculated from the node contribution, which measures the Pearson correlation coefficient between each node and the module summary. Pearson correlation coefficients are overestimated when calculated on proportional data. This should not affect the permutation test P-values since the null distribution observations will be similarly overestimated.
Users should also be aware of this when calculating the correlation
structure between all nodes for the
input, and use an appropriate method for calculating these
Homogenous modules are modules where all nodes are similarly correlated or similarly connected: differences in edge weights, correlation coefficients, and node contributions are due to noise.
For these modules, the concordance of correlation (‘cor.cor’), concordance of node contribution (‘cor.contrib’), and correlation of weighted degree (‘cor.degree’) may be small, with large permutation test P-values, even where a module is preserved, due to irrelevant changes in node rank for each property between the discovery and test datasets.
These statistics should be considered in the context of their “average” counterparts: the average correlation coefficient (‘avg.cor’), average node contribution (‘avg.contrib’) and average edge weight (‘avg.weight’). If these are high, with significant permutation test P-values, and the module coherence is high, then the module should be investigated further.
Module homogeneity can be investigated through plotting their network topology in both datasets (see next section). In our experience, the smaller the module, the more likely it is to be topologically homogenous.
The module preservation statistics break down for modules with less than four nodes. The number of nodes is effectively the sample size when calculating the value of a module preservation statistic. If you wish to use NetRep to analyse these modules, you should use only the average edge weight (‘avg.weight’), module coherence (‘coherence’), average node contribution (‘avg.contrib’), and average correlation coefficient (‘avg.cor’) statistics.
We can visualise the network topology of our modules using the
plotModule function. It takes the same input data as the
network: a list of network adjacency matrices, one for each dataset.
correlation: a list of matrices containing the correlation coefficients between nodes.
data: a list of data matrices used to infer the
moduleAssignments: a list of vectors, one for each discovery dataset, containing the module labels for each node.
modules: the modules we want to plot.
discovery: the dataset the modules were identified in.
test: the dataset we want to plot the modules in.
First, let’s look at the four modules in the discovery dataset:
plotModule( data=data_list, correlation=correlation_list, network=network_list, moduleAssignments=module_labels, modules=c(1,2,3,4), discovery="cohort1", test="cohort1" )
## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Validating user input... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Checking matrices for problems... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] User input ok! ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Calculating network properties of network subsets from dataset "cohort1" ## in dataset "cohort1"... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Ordering nodes... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Ordering samples... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] Ordering samples... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:05 AEDT] rendering plot components... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:08 AEDT] Done!
By default, nodes are ordered from left to right in decreasing order of weighted degree: the sum of edge weights within each module, i.e. how strongly connected each node is within its module. For visualisation, the weighted degree is normalised within each module by the maximum value since the weighted degree of nodes can be dramatically different for modules of different sizes.
Samples are ordered from top to bottom in descending order of the module summary profile of the left-most shown module.
When we plot the four modules in the test dataset, the nodes remain in the same order: that is, in decreasing order of weighted degree in the discovery dataset. This allows you to directly compare topology plots in each dataset of interest:
plotModule( data=data_list, correlation=correlation_list, network=network_list, moduleAssignments=module_labels, modules=c(1,2,3,4), discovery="cohort1", test="cohort2" )
## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] Validating user input... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] Checking matrices for problems... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] User input ok! ## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] Calculating network properties of network subsets from dataset "cohort1" ## in dataset "cohort1"... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] Calculating network properties of network subsets from dataset "cohort1" ## in dataset "cohort2"... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:10 AEDT] Ordering nodes... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:11 AEDT] Ordering samples... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:11 AEDT] Ordering samples... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:11 AEDT] rendering plot components... ## [2023-01-06 20:55:13 AEDT] Done!