I am conducting a master's research project where I have incorporated a terpene into a polysaccharide-based hydrogel and aim to evaluate its osteoinductive activity in mesenchymal stem cells using molecular biology techniques. To complement this, I am performing a network pharmacology analysis to explore potential targets of the terpene that may be involved in osteogenesis.

Here is the workflow I have followed so far:

  • Identified terpene targets using SwissTargetPrediction and osteogenesis-related genes via GeneCards.
  • Filtered and intersected the results through a Venn diagram to identify common targets.
  • Imported the common targets into STRING and exported the TSV file for PPI network analysis in Cytoscape.
  • Now, I am exploring the most robust approach for further analysis and would appreciate insights on the following options:

  • Perform GO and KEGG enrichment analysis on all common targets identified.
  • Analyze the PPI network in Cytoscape, calculate metrics such as degree and closeness, and select hub genes based on values above the median or a fixed threshold (e.g., top 10, 20, or 30 genes). Then, conduct GO and KEGG analysis on these hub genes.
  • Use CytoHubba (e.g., MCC criterion) to select hub genes and perform enrichment analysis.
  • Cluster the network (using methods such as MCODE or MCL) and evaluate GO and KEGG enrichment for each cluster. Which clustering method would be most appropriate in this context?
  • If both hub gene analysis and cluster analysis are performed, how should I integrate these results? Should clusters be selected based on size or another criterion?
  • I would greatly value your suggestions on which approach would yield the most meaningful biological insights or if there are alternative methods I should consider. Thank you in advance for your guidance!

    More Wanderson Gabriel Gomes de Melo's questions See All
    Similar questions and discussions