Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21639945›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

Evaluating methods for ranking differentially expressed genes applied to microArray quality control data.

Koji Kadota, Kentaro Shimizu

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Microarray Study of Carpet-Shell Clam (Frontiers in physiology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cardiovascular genomics: a biomarker identification pipeline.IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2012
    Review
  16. A normalization strategy for comparing tag count data.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2012
    Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

Koji KadotaAgricultural Bioinformatics Research Unit, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Japan. kadota@bi.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Kentaro Shimizu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiometryGene Expression ProfilingModels, GeneticOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisQuality ControlResearch DesignSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID21639945
PMCPMC3128035

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.