Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22759431›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms.

Jeremy J Jay, John D Eblen, Yun Zhang, Mikael Benson, Andy D Perkins, Arnold M Saxton, Brynn H Voy, Elissa J Chesler, Michael A Langston

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Comparative Study of Gene Co-Expression Thresholding Algorithms.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genomic Metrics Applied toFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  12. Genetic Diversity AmongFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Lower Bounds on Paraclique Density.Discrete applied mathematics (Amsterdam, Netherlands : 1988) · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Jeremy J JayThe Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA.
John D Eblen
Yun Zhang
Mikael Benson
Andy D Perkins
Arnold M Saxton
Brynn H Voy
Elissa J Chesler
Michael A Langston

Funding

Data Structures, Algorithms and Tools for Ontological DiscoveryR01AA018776 · NIAAA · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI CHESLER, ELISSA J · 2010 to 2019
$3.9M
INIA-STRESS: Informatics and Analysis CoreU01AA016662 · NIAAA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, ROBERT W. · 2007 to 2016
$2.9M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA018776NIAAA NIH HHS R01-AA-018776NIAAA NIH HHS U01-AA-016662NIMH NIH HHS R01-MH-074460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA wealth of clustering algorithms has been applied to gene co-expression experiments. These algorithms cover a broad range of approaches, from conventional techniques such as k-means and hierarchical clustering, to graphical approaches such as k-clique communities, weighted gene co-expression networks (WGCNA) and paraclique. Comparison of these methods to evaluate their relative effectiveness provides guidance to algorithm selection, development and implementation. Most prior work on comparative clustering evaluation has focused on parametric methods. Graph theoretical methods are recent additions to the tool set for the global analysis and decomposition of microarray co-expression matrices that have not generally been included in earlier methodological comparisons. In the present study, a variety of parametric and graph theoretical clustering algorithms are compared using well-characterized transcriptomic data at a genome scale from Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

methodsFor each clustering method under study, a variety of parameters were tested. Jaccard similarity was used to measure each cluster's agreement with every GO and KEGG annotation set, and the highest Jaccard score was assigned to the cluster. Clusters were grouped into small, medium, and large bins, and the Jaccard score of the top five scoring clusters in each bin were averaged and reported as the best average top 5 (BAT5) score for the particular method.

resultsClusters produced by each method were evaluated based upon the positive match to known pathways. This produces a readily interpretable ranking of the relative effectiveness of clustering on the genes. Methods were also tested to determine whether they were able to identify clusters consistent with those identified by other clustering methods.

conclusionsValidation of clusters against known gene classifications demonstrate that for this data, graph-based techniques outperform conventional clustering approaches, suggesting that further development and application of combinatorial strategies is warranted.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingGenome, FungalOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID22759431
PMCPMC3382433

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.