Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18704157›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2008

Geometric interpretation of gene coexpression network analysis.

Steve Horvath, Jun Dong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 499 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
499citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

499 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

439 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Steve HorvathDepartment of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Jun Dong

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
Systems genomics of metabolic syndrome traitsP01HL028481 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI REUE, KAREN · 1985 to 2019
$50.2M
UCLA SPORE IN PROSTATE CANCERP50CA092131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FREEMAN, MICHAEL R · 2002 to 2023
$42.6M
Quantitative Biology CoreU19AI063603 · NIAID · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SCHORK, NICHOLAS JOSEPH · 2004 to 2015
$26.4M
UCLA NINDS/NIMH Microarray CenterU24NS043562 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NELSON, STANLEY F. · 2002 to 2004
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS 5P30CA016042-28NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092131NCI NIH HHS P50CA092131NHLBI NIH HHS HL28481NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL028481NIAID NIH HHS 1U19AI063603-01NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI063603NINDS NIH HHS 1U24NS043562-01NINDS NIH HHS U24 NS043562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

the merging of network theory and microarray data analysis techniques has spawned a new fieldgene coexpression network analysis. While network methods are increasingly used in biology, the network vocabulary of computational biologists tends to be far more limited than that of, say, social network theorists. Here we review and propose several potentially useful network concepts. We take advantage of the relationship between network theory and the field of microarray data analysis to clarify the meaning of and the relationship among network concepts in gene coexpression networks. Network theory offers a wealth of intuitive concepts for describing the pairwise relationships among genes, which are depicted in cluster trees and heat maps. Conversely, microarray data analysis techniques (singular value decomposition, tests of differential expression) can also be used to address difficult problems in network theory. We describe conditions when a close relationship exists between network analysis and microarray data analysis techniques, and provide a rough dictionary for translating between the two fields. Using the angular interpretation of correlations, we provide a geometric interpretation of network theoretic concepts and derive unexpected relationships among them. We use the singular value decomposition of module expression data to characterize approximately factorizable gene coexpression networks, i.e., adjacency matrices that factor into node specific contributions. High and low level views of coexpression networks allow us to study the relationships among modules and among module genes, respectively. We characterize coexpression networks where hub genes are significant with respect to a microarray sample trait and show that the network concept of intramodular connectivity can be interpreted as a fuzzy measure of module membership. We illustrate our results using human, mouse, and yeast microarray gene expression data. The unification of coexpression network methods with traditional data mining methods can inform the application and development of systems biologic methods.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsAnimalsCluster AnalysisFuzzy LogicGene Expression ProfilingGenes, FungalHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMiceOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSystems BiologyTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18704157
PMCPMC2446438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.