Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22962488›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012

Bayesian assignment of gene ontology terms to gene expression experiments.

P Sykacek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

P SykacekDepartment of Biotechnology, BOKU University, Muthgasse 18, 1190 Vienna. peter.sykacek@boku.ac.at

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationGene expression assays allow for genome scale analyses of molecular biological mechanisms. State-of-the-art data analysis provides lists of involved genes, either by calculating significance levels of mRNA abundance or by Bayesian assessments of gene activity. A common problem of such approaches is the difficulty of interpreting the biological implication of the resulting gene lists. This lead to an increased interest in methods for inferring high-level biological information. A common approach for representing high level information is by inferring gene ontology (GO) terms which may be attributed to the expression data experiment.

resultsThis article proposes a probabilistic model for GO term inference. Modelling assumes that gene annotations to GO terms are available and gene involvement in an experiment is represented by a posterior probabilities over gene-specific indicator variables. Such probability measures result from many Bayesian approaches for expression data analysis. The proposed model combines these indicator probabilities in a probabilistic fashion and provides a probabilistic GO term assignment as a result. Experiments on synthetic and microarray data suggest that advantages of the proposed probabilistic GO term inference over statistical test-based approaches are in particular evident for sparsely annotated GO terms and in situations of large uncertainty about gene activity. Provided that appropriate annotations exist, the proposed approach is easily applied to inferring other high level assignments like pathways. AVAILABILITY: Source code under GPL license is available from the author. CONTACT: peter.sykacek@boku.ac.at.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalVocabulary, ControlledAlgorithmsAnimalsApoptosisBayes TheoremCell DifferentiationEndothelial CellsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenesHeat-Shock ResponseMammary Glands, AnimalOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisProbabilitySaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID22962488
PMCPMC3436832

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.