Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23217028›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

Comparison of co-expression measures: mutual information, correlation, and model based indices.

Lin Song, Peter Langfelder, Steve Horvath

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 224 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
224citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

224 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Blood transcriptomic comparison of individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder: A combined-samples mega-analysis.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

164 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Lin SongHuman Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, California, Los Angeles, USA.
Peter Langfelder
Steve Horvath

Funding

UCLA SPORE IN PROSTATE CANCERP50CA092131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FREEMAN, MICHAEL R · 2002 to 2023
$42.6M
Genetics of Gene Expression and Gene Mapping for Amytrophic Lateral SclerosisR01NS058980 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI OPHOFF, ROEL A · 2008 to 2012
$1.6M
Pathways to HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders: A Systems Biology ApproachR01DA030913 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI HORVATH, STEVE, LEVINE, ANDREW J · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50CA092131NIDA NIH HHS 1R01 DA030913-01NINDS NIH HHS R01NS058980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-expression measures are often used to define networks among genes. Mutual information (MI) is often used as a generalized correlation measure. It is not clear how much MI adds beyond standard (robust) correlation measures or regression model based association measures. Further, it is important to assess what transformations of these and other co-expression measures lead to biologically meaningful modules (clusters of genes).

resultsWe provide a comprehensive comparison between mutual information and several correlation measures in 8 empirical data sets and in simulations. We also study different approaches for transforming an adjacency matrix, e.g. using the topological overlap measure. Overall, we confirm close relationships between MI and correlation in all data sets which reflects the fact that most gene pairs satisfy linear or monotonic relationships. We discuss rare situations when the two measures disagree. We also compare correlation and MI based approaches when it comes to defining co-expression network modules. We show that a robust measure of correlation (the biweight midcorrelation transformed via the topological overlap transformation) leads to modules that are superior to MI based modules and maximal information coefficient (MIC) based modules in terms of gene ontology enrichment. We present a function that relates correlation to mutual information which can be used to approximate the mutual information from the corresponding correlation coefficient. We propose the use of polynomial or spline regression models as an alternative to MI for capturing non-linear relationships between quantitative variables.

conclusionThe biweight midcorrelation outperforms MI in terms of elucidating gene pairwise relationships. Coupled with the topological overlap matrix transformation, it often leads to more significantly enriched co-expression modules. Spline and polynomial networks form attractive alternatives to MI in case of non-linear relationships. Our results indicate that MI networks can safely be replaced by correlation networks when it comes to measuring co-expression relationships in stationary data.

Indexed as

Gene Regulatory NetworksModels, GeneticAlgorithmsGene Expression ProfilingHumansMultigene FamilyStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23217028
PMCPMC3586947

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.