ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008
Gene set analyses for interpreting microarray experiments on prokaryotic organisms.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMPROVED PERFORMANCE OF GENE SET ANALYSIS ON GENOME-WIDE TRANSCRIPTOMICS DATA WHEN USING GENE ACTIVITY STATE ESTIMATES.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2017Article
- A Bayesian Framework for the Classification of Microbial Gene Activity States.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Evaluating the consistency of gene sets used in the analysis of bacterial gene expression data.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- SEAS: a system for SEED-based pathway enrichment analysis.PloS one · 2011Article
- Induction of Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 under different growth conditions can affect Salmonella-host cell interactions in vitro.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2010Article
- Comparing gene set analysis methods on single-nucleotide polymorphism data from Genetic Analysis Workshop 16.BMC proceedings · 2009Article
- Unite and conquer: univariate and multivariate approaches for finding differentially expressed gene sets.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2009Article
- Identification of differential gene pathways with principal component analysis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2009Article
- Inclusion of a priori information in genome-wide association analysis.Genetic epidemiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.