ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012
Matching experiments across species using expression values and textual information.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning a genome-wide score of human-mouse conservation at the functional genomics level.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Comparison of Gene Coexpression Profiles and Construction of Conserved Gene Networks to Find Functional Modules.PloS one · 2015Article
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationWith the vast increase in the number of gene expression datasets deposited in public databases, novel techniques are required to analyze and mine this wealth of data. Similar to the way BLAST enables cross-species comparison of sequence data, tools that enable cross-species expression comparison will allow us to better utilize these datasets: cross-species expression comparison enables us to address questions in evolution and development, and further allows the identification of disease-related genes and pathways that play similar roles in humans and model organisms. Unlike sequence, which is static, expression data changes over time and under different conditions. Thus, a prerequisite for performing cross-species analysis is the ability to match experiments across species.
resultsTo enable better cross-species comparisons, we developed methods for automatically identifying pairs of similar expression datasets across species. Our method uses a co-training algorithm to combine a model of expression similarity with a model of the text which accompanies the expression experiments. The co-training method outperforms previous methods based on expression similarity alone. Using expert analysis, we show that the new matches identified by our method indeed capture biological similarities across species. We then use the matched expression pairs between human and mouse to recover known and novel cycling genes as well as to identify genes with possible involvement in diabetes. By providing the ability to identify novel candidate genes in model organisms, our method opens the door to new models for studying diseases. AVAILABILITY: Source code and supplementary information is available at: www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/aaronwis/cotrain12.
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.