Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18986519›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Gene set analyses for interpreting microarray experiments on prokaryotic organisms.

Nathan L Tintle, Aaron A Best, Matthew DeJongh, Dirk Van Bruggen, Fred Heffron, Steffen Porwollik, Ronald C Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors.

Nathan L TintleDepartment of Mathematics, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, USA. tintle@hope.edu
Aaron A Best
Matthew DeJongh
Dirk Van Bruggen
Fred Heffron
Steffen Porwollik
Ronald C Taylor

Funding

SALMONELLA GENES REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL IN THE MACROPHAGER01AI022933 · NIAID · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI HEFFRON, FRED L · 1987 to 2013
$4.6M
Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Sample Designs for Genetic AssocR15HG004543 · NHGRI · HOPE COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2008 to 2011
$288k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG004543NHGRI NIH HHS R15HG004543NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI022933NIAID NIH HHS R01AI022933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the widespread usage of DNA microarrays, questions remain about how best to interpret the wealth of gene-by-gene transcriptional levels that they measure. Recently, methods have been proposed which use biologically defined sets of genes in interpretation, instead of examining results gene-by-gene. Despite a serious limitation, a method based on Fisher's exact test remains one of the few plausible options for gene set analysis when an experiment has few replicates, as is typically the case for prokaryotes.

resultsWe extend five methods of gene set analysis from use on experiments with multiple replicates, for use on experiments with few replicates. We then use simulated and real data to compare these methods with each other and with the Fisher's exact test (FET) method. As a result of the simulation we find that a method named MAXMEAN-NR, maintains the nominal rate of false positive findings (type I error rate) while offering good statistical power and robustness to a variety of gene set distributions for set sizes of at least 10. Other methods (ABSSUM-NR or SUM-NR) are shown to be powerful for set sizes less than 10. Analysis of three sets of experimental data shows similar results. Furthermore, the MAXMEAN-NR method is shown to be able to detect biologically relevant sets as significant, when other methods (including FET) cannot. We also find that the popular GSEA-NR method performs poorly when compared to MAXMEAN-NR.

conclusionMAXMEAN-NR is a method of gene set analysis for experiments with few replicates, as is common for prokaryotes. Results of simulation and real data analysis suggest that the MAXMEAN-NR method offers increased robustness and biological relevance of findings as compared to FET and other methods, while maintaining the nominal type I error rate.

Indexed as

Oligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisComputer SimulationEscherichia coli K12Gene Expression ProfilingProkaryotic CellsSalmonella typhimuriumStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18986519
PMCPMC2587482

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.