Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21283776›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2011

Is my network module preserved and reproducible?

Peter Langfelder, Rui Luo, Michael C Oldham, Steve Horvath

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 648 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
648citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

648 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,066 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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

588 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter LangfelderDepartment of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Rui Luo
Michael C Oldham
Steve Horvath
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
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 YATES III, JOHN R · 2004 to 2015
$26.4M
Gene expression networks for metabolic syndrome traits in miceR01DK072206 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DRAKE, THOMAS A · 2006 to 2010
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS 5P30CA016042-28NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092131NCI NIH HHS P50CA092131NIAID NIH HHS 1U19AI063603-01NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI063603NIDDK NIH HHS DK072206NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK072206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many applications, one is interested in determining which of the properties of a network module change across conditions. For example, to validate the existence of a module, it is desirable to show that it is reproducible (or preserved) in an independent test network. Here we study several types of network preservation statistics that do not require a module assignment in the test network. We distinguish network preservation statistics by the type of the underlying network. Some preservation statistics are defined for a general network (defined by an adjacency matrix) while others are only defined for a correlation network (constructed on the basis of pairwise correlations between numeric variables). Our applications show that the correlation structure facilitates the definition of particularly powerful module preservation statistics. We illustrate that evaluating module preservation is in general different from evaluating cluster preservation. We find that it is advantageous to aggregate multiple preservation statistics into summary preservation statistics. We illustrate the use of these methods in six gene co-expression network applications including 1) preservation of cholesterol biosynthesis pathway in mouse tissues, 2) comparison of human and chimpanzee brain networks, 3) preservation of selected KEGG pathways between human and chimpanzee brain networks, 4) sex differences in human cortical networks, 5) sex differences in mouse liver networks. While we find no evidence for sex specific modules in human cortical networks, we find that several human cortical modules are less preserved in chimpanzees. In particular, apoptosis genes are differentially co-expressed between humans and chimpanzees. Our simulation studies and applications show that module preservation statistics are useful for studying differences between the modular structure of networks. Data, R software and accompanying tutorials can be downloaded from the following webpage: http://www.genetics.ucla.edu/labs/horvath/CoexpressionNetwork/ModulePreservation.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainFemaleGene ExpressionHumansMaleMiceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID21283776
PMCPMC3024255
OpenAlexW1974033269

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.