Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23226279›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Evaluation of gene association methods for coexpression network construction and biological knowledge discovery.

Sapna Kumari, Jeff Nie, Huann-Sheng Chen, Hao Ma, Ron Stewart, Xiang Li, Meng-Zhu Lu, William M Taylor, Hairong Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Phosphoproteomics data-driven signalling network inference: Does it work?Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Assessment of TSPAN Expression Profile and Their Role in the VSCC Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Network Modeling in Biology: Statistical Methods for Gene and Brain Networks.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2021
    Article

7 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

9 authors.

Sapna KumariDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Jeff Nie
Huann-Sheng Chen
Hao Ma
Ron Stewart
Xiang Li
Meng-Zhu Lu
William M Taylor
Hairong Wei

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConstructing coexpression networks and performing network analysis using large-scale gene expression data sets is an effective way to uncover new biological knowledge; however, the methods used for gene association in constructing these coexpression networks have not been thoroughly evaluated. Since different methods lead to structurally different coexpression networks and provide different information, selecting the optimal gene association method is critical. METHODS AND

resultsIn this study, we compared eight gene association methods - Spearman rank correlation, Weighted Rank Correlation, Kendall, Hoeffding's D measure, Theil-Sen, Rank Theil-Sen, Distance Covariance, and Pearson - and focused on their true knowledge discovery rates in associating pathway genes and construction coordination networks of regulatory genes. We also examined the behaviors of different methods to microarray data with different properties, and whether the biological processes affect the efficiency of different methods.

conclusionsWe found that the Spearman, Hoeffding and Kendall methods are effective in identifying coexpressed pathway genes, whereas the Theil-sen, Rank Theil-Sen, Spearman, and Weighted Rank methods perform well in identifying coordinated transcription factors that control the same biological processes and traits. Surprisingly, the widely used Pearson method is generally less efficient, and so is the Distance Covariance method that can find gene pairs of multiple relationships. Some analyses we did clearly show Pearson and Distance Covariance methods have distinct behaviors as compared to all other six methods. The efficiencies of different methods vary with the data properties to some degree and are largely contingent upon the biological processes, which necessitates the pre-analysis to identify the best performing method for gene association and coexpression network construction.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionGene Regulatory NetworksAlgorithmsGene Expression ProfilingHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisStatistics, NonparametricSystems BiologyTranscription FactorsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID23226279
PMCPMC3511551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.