ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Evaluating methods for ranking differentially expressed genes applied to microArray quality control data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Differential expression analysis using a model-based gene clustering algorithm for RNA-seq data.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- A two-way rectification method for identifying differentially expressed genes by maximizing the co-function relationship.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Dynamic Expression of Genes Involved in Proteoglycan/Glycosaminoglycan Metabolism during Skin Development.BioMed research international · 2018Article
- Silhouette Scores for Arbitrary Defined Groups in Gene Expression Data and Insights into Differential Expression Results.Biological procedures online · 2018Article
- A Microarray Study of Carpet-Shell Clam (Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis on multi-group RNA-seq count data.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Dynamic association rules for gene expression data analysis.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- The effect of music performance on the transcriptome of professional musicians.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Article
- Fold change rank ordering statistics: a new method for detecting differentially expressed genes.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- The mechanisms underlying α-amanitin resistance in Drosophila melanogaster: a microarray analysis.PloS one · 2014Article
- Two-way AIC: detection of differentially expressed genes from large scale microarray meta-dataset.BMC genomics · 2013Article
- Comparing Imputation Procedures for Affymetrix Gene Expression Datasets Using MAQC Datasets.Advances in bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Cardiovascular genomics: a biomarker identification pipeline.IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2012Review
- A normalization strategy for comparing tag count data.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistical methods for ranking differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from gene expression data should be evaluated with regard to high sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. In our previous studies, we evaluated eight gene ranking methods applied to only Affymetrix GeneChip data. A more general evaluation that also includes other microarray platforms, such as the Agilent or Illumina systems, is desirable for determining which methods are suitable for each platform and which method has better inter-platform reproducibility.
resultsWe compared the eight gene ranking methods using the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) datasets produced by five manufacturers: Affymetrix, Applied Biosystems, Agilent, GE Healthcare, and Illumina. The area under the curve (AUC) was used as a measure for both sensitivity and specificity. Although the highest AUC values can vary with the definition of "true" DEGs, the best methods were, in most cases, either the weighted average difference (WAD), rank products (RP), or intensity-based moderated t statistic (ibmT). The percentages of overlapping genes (POGs) across different test sites were mainly evaluated as a measure for both intra- and inter-platform reproducibility. The POG values for WAD were the highest overall, irrespective of the choice of microarray platform. The high intra- and inter-platform reproducibility of WAD was also observed at a higher biological function level.
conclusionThese results for the five microarray platforms were consistent with our previous ones based on 36 real experimental datasets measured using the Affymetrix platform. Thus, recommendations made using the MAQC benchmark data might be universally applicable.
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.